In part 1 I described the feminist life script of women delaying marriage as long as possible, and the modern Christian adoption of the feminist script as not only compatible with Christianity, but God’s will. The longer a Christian woman waits to marry, the more pious she is said to be.

But even the originators of the life script have begun to see the dangers in taking the feminist ethos too far. Back in 2008 Lori Gottlieb warned of what she had personally learned the hard way; women who delay marriage too long will find themselves with a rapidly declining pool of marriage prospects. Gotlieb urged younger women to do the unthinkable, to settle! She even included the word settle in the title of her article and later book: Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough:

My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go.

In fact the word settle (including variations like settling) is repeated 118 times in Gotlieb’s article. Gotlieb understood that by suggesting women settle she was broaching a great taboo of both feminism and our modern age:

Obviously, I wasn’t always an advocate of settling. In fact, it took not settling to make me realize that settling is the better option, and even though settling is a rampant phenomenon, talking about it in a positive light makes people profoundly uncomfortable. Whenever I make the case for settling, people look at me with creased brows of disapproval or frowns of disappointment, the way a child might look at an older sibling who just informed her that Jerry’s Kids aren’t going to walk, even if you send them money. It’s not only politically incorrect to get behind settling, it’s downright un-American. Our culture tells us to keep our eyes on the prize (while our mothers, who know better, tell us not to be so picky), and the theme of holding out for true love (whatever that is—look at the divorce rate) permeates our collective mentality.

The feminist reaction to this message has been predictably chilly, but there is also a grudging acceptance of the underlying truth of it. However, modern Christian culture has identified the feminist life script as coming from God. The very unbiblical feminist obsession with women’s self esteem has become a core tenet of modern Christianity. She is a daughter of the King! Nothing is too good for her! Moreover, for a modern Christian woman settling is seen as an act of denying the power and trustworthiness of God, an act of apostasy. While the Bible teaches women that they should cultivate a quiet and gentle spirit, something beautiful to God, modern Christians teach women that God wants women to be the opposite, that they are to be sassy, big and bold, loud and proud.

Before I go any further I should note that there is a fundamental problem with Gotlieb’s thesis. She is of course right that marriage delaying women are creating ever growing and unrealistic expectations for their future husband, and that in the long run the unrealistic woman is the one who ultimately bears the brunt of this folly. But strictly speaking settling isn’t the answer. A woman who decides to marry a man whom she isn’t attracted to (because she sees him as beneath her) isn’t doing the man, her future children, or anyone else a favor. The real problem isn’t her ever growing checklist of required attributes, but the mindset that created the unrealistic list in the first place. What a woman with an unrealistic perception of her own marriage market value (MMV) needs to do is not ruin some unsuspecting man’s life, she needs to accept reality and humble herself. The more inflated the woman’s sense of self regard is, the more painful the humbling will be. Yet from here she will be able to choose and appreciate the best from her real prospects, not settle.

But a woman humbling herself goes directly against modern Christian teaching. Instead of jettisoning toxic anti-Christian feminist teaching, modern Christians are doubling down on it. After failing for decades to fall for a good man in their own league (who therefore is also interested in them), modern Christian women regularly declare that the problem is they didn’t have a high enough regard for themselves! The problem as they see it is not their own overinflated ego and decision to push good men aside to chase alpha assholes; the problem is with men for not being good enough for them. As 38 year old* never married Mandy Hale explains in Dash of Sass: ENOUGH:

“Why wasn’t I enough for him?”

I can’t tell you how many times that was the cry of my heart…all within the bounds of one relationship…because I chose for years to stand there waiting for someone to look at me and actually SEE me. To love me. To treat me like I was ENOUGH. When really, he was the one who was lacking. Lacking in depth. Lacking in character. Lacking in honesty. Lacking in integrity. I thought I wasn’t enough for him when the truth was…he wasn’t enough for me…

These men will never understand women like us. Women who love with all our heart, mind, body, and soul. Women who refuse to settle for mediocre but hold out for magical. Women who believe that love should never be average or lukewarm or just “okay” but life-changing and earth-shaking and boundary-breaking.

Women like us may stay single for awhile longer, as it takes a special man to handle everything that we are. Because to make ourselves less in order to be pleasing to a man is simply not something we are willing to do.

What is even more astounding than a 38 year old never married woman offering her own errors for marriage minded women to emulate, is the fact that such women are eagerly accepted as possessing great wisdom on the topic. The longer a woman has failed to accomplish something nearly all women accomplish, the more qualified she is seen to instruct other women on the matter!

Enter Wendy Griffith, Grand Master of not finding a husband.

From this perspective, fellow never married career woman Wendy Griffith has Hale soundly beat. While 38 year old Hale has only failed to find a husband for 20 years, 53 year old** Griffith has failed to find a husband for 35 years! At 38 Hale could in theory still manage to marry and have a child or two if she did so right away. At 53 Griffith’s reproductive years are over.

Griffith’s book, like Gotlieb’s, includes settle in the title: You Are a Prize to be Won!: Don’t Settle for Less Than God’s Best. But unlike Gotlieb, Griffith isn’t offering her own refusal to settle as a cautionary tale. She is offering it as a roadmap for all women to follow! Even worse, this is the message modern Christian leaders enthusiastically endorse. At CBN Pat Robertson introduced Griffith’s book as one that every Christian girl and single woman should read:

I’m holding in my hand a very special book. It’s a book that every young girl should have. Teenagers should have it, college students should have it, and young single women should have it. It’s called You are a prize to be won. Written by none other than the lovely Wendy Griffith, and she has had all kinds of experiences!

As Robertson notes Griffith has had all kinds of experiences. However, this experience represents decades of failure! Imagine a 65 year old man who worked in the mailroom his entire career writing a book on climbing the corporate ladder, and the full hubris of Griffith writing this book comes to light.

Like Hale, Griffith’s epiphany came when she was dumped by an alpha she was chasing. In Knowing Your True Value Moira Brown interviews Griffith for 100Huntly Street, and they both diagnose Griffith’s one that got away as running a kind of push-pull game on her. But Griffith’s takeaway was not that she should stop chasing alphas and learn to be attracted to good men. Her takeaway was that she needed to further inflate her own ego:

Brown: You know I think psychologists would refer to this as a sort of “Come here. Go away”. Do you see that in this guy?

Griffith: Well absolutely. He was hot and cold. But the thing that I learned was that when you know your value, it’s a game changer. I didn’t know my value; I didn’t know that I was a prize to be won. And when you don’t know your value, you put up with bad behavior, you settle. You settle for emotional crumbs. I thought I’m in my mid 40s, I’ve never been married. This is my last chance. And so you tell yourself, you know, you’ve got to make it work, you know you’re gonna make this work.

Brown was upset that Griffith would not have an inflated sense of self regard. Isn’t she a Christian woman? Griffith explained that God Himself had spoken to her and told her that she was a prize to be won. She even compares her self worth to what Christ said about the value of the Kingdom of Heaven!

Brown: Some of us we’re scratching our heads. She’s gorgeous, she’s got this amazing career. How could you not see your value? You’re already a daughter of the King.

Griffith: Well you know “You are a prize to be won” it was a word that God spoke to me years ago, before I was even in that relationship. I guess I hadn’t been tested on it. Because I was even preaching it to other women “You are a prize to be won” and they were getting it like “Yeah!” But until I got into that relationship and I realized that I didn’t really know my value. I didn’t know that I had that value that God talks about in His word. And if we don’t know that, if we don’t know that we’re that pearl of great price. You know, that we’re royal daughters.

Brown: Yes!

Griffith goes on to explain that God hates it when women settle:

Griffith: If we don’t know that, again we’ll settle for much less. You know it breaks God’s heart when we settle. And that’s the other thing that the Lord taught me through the heartbreak was God hates compromise! He hates it when we settle, because He’s a good daddy, he wants to give his daughters – and his sons – His very best. And He’ll let us settle if we ignore all the red flags and if we keep going He’ll say ok but He desperately doesn’t want us to settle. He want’s us to hold out for His best.

You can see the whole exchange here:

I was curious if the misuse of the pearl of great price was a slip of the moment in the interview, or something Griffith truly misunderstands, so I checked to see if I could find a reference to it in the amazon preview of her book. I found it in the concluding paragraph of the preface:

My sister, God has a special word for you that will change your life. You are a royal daughter of the Most High King, a princess in the palace, a pearl of great price and beautiful beyond measure. Your greatest love, the man of your dreams and the father of your children, is out there waiting for you, because you, my sister, are a prize to be won!

Griffith dedicates the book:

To my future husband: I know you will be worth the wait!

For those who want more wisdom about marriage and finding a husband from women who have failed to marry, see also Griffith interviewing Hale. In this twofer Griffith asks Hale what a single Christian woman should focus on. This leads to Hale’s wisdom on how to have a happy marriage, which Griffith of course loves:

Hale: As long as you’re in this moment, as a single woman, loving yourself, thriving where you are at, deciding to live as big and bold and brave of a life as you can, regardless of whether you are flying solo or not.

Griffith: Now, how is being happily single a precurser to being happily taken?

Hale: I think it’s all about realizing that your self worth and your value is really based on what’s inside you and not in who is standing beside you. And I think, I’ve heard quotes that talk about, your married life can only be as successful as your single life. And so I think you really just work on as a single person becoming all the things you hope to attract in another person, you can’t go wrong.

Griffith: And Mandy I love what you said, you said “Stop looking for a hero and become your own hero.” How do you do that?

Hale: I think that, you know I’m such a fan of the fairy tales and the happily ever after, but I think that it’s kind of ingrained in us that we are supposed to be rescued from our lives and that we’re waiting for this prince charming to ride up on a white horse, and really the heart of my message is realizing that living happily ever after is all about building a life that is so wonderful that you don’t want to be rescued from it.

Griffith: Wow! Thats…

Hale: So, I think that it’s all about just creating your own happiness and allowing someone else come in and compliment that, and not to complete you. Because you are already complete, you are already all the things that what you want to be, you just have to tap into it.

**Griffith’s bio at the bottom of this page says she graduated with her Bachelors degree in 1986. Assuming she was 18 when she graduated high school and only took 4 years to get her Bachelors that would put her at 53 today. This estimate is corroborated by her statement here that she was in her mid 40s in 2012.

Besides this whole settling ethos is just the natural progression of women going into panic mode after years of either dumping good men or pursuing cads to the point your prospects have almost dried up. Most of us here know what we call this.

I do think one of the kindest things a woman can do is dump a guy because of their lack of passion or connection because marriage and children isn’t going to magically solve this. I know I don’t understand it and often times think it’s nuts and most likely it’s not the man’s fault this happens…but it has to be somewhat important to women. If I were to make a guess as to why many women have this lack of passion and connection it is due to pride and going humble would help a lot.

One thing we all ought notice is how physically attractive these women are.

I know Mandy Hale isn’t the best looking woman around. But she is still quite attractive enough to pique the interest of several men. She has always had what it takes physically to attract men who would marry her.

Same with Wendy Griffith. If it really is true she’s now 53 (she was probably around 50 in the video clip in the OP), she’s easily top 10% in physical appearance for her age group. If she is top 10% now, she’s never in her life been out of the top 30%, and thus at all times easily able to attract top men, and men who would marry her.

What has happened, and it’s clear to anyone with more than a couple of weeks around this blog, is that both Griffith and Hale spent their time dating (and most likely having sex with) very attractive men, just like nonChristian women and less devout women do, waiting around for the hot alphas they date (i.e. have sex with) to come through with the ring, and then letting these men string them along when it doesn’t happen. These women then recast it as “never settle” and “I deserve better” and “they weren’t good enough for me” when the truth is had they humbled themselves and brought themselves down to earth, they could (and almost certainly would) have locked down a good man. (But let’s be honest – the “good men” all around her weren’t hot enough or exciting enough or good enough in bed.)

The problem with these women is a lack of contentment and gratitude. Paul told Timothy he had learned to be content in whatever state he found himself, and expressed gratitude for the blessings he had received, while urging all Christians to do likewise. These women have no gratitude for God or His grace, nor can they ever be content, for they are full of pride.
Pride not only takes blessings for granted, it tells us we are owed blessings. Pride destroys contentment, for it tells us nothing we have is truly as good as we deserve. These women, consumed with pride, can never be content in any state, much less whatever state, they find themselves. If married they would soon be unhaaaapppy because of the discontent arising from their pride. And suddenly it becomes much more clear why negging works.
Snark aside, it is clear that even were they to marry no man would ever be good enough. After all, remember that Mizz Hale insists she has never relied on a man for anything. This would preclude her salvation and being a true Christian, as our salvation comes through the Man Christ Jesus and His atonement and grace to us.
If I may, let me repeat that. Any woman who says she never has and never will rely on a man for anything cannot be saved….I Timothy 2:5.

‘These women then recast it as “never settle” and “I deserve better” and “they weren’t good enough for me” when the truth is had they humbled themselves and brought themselves down to earth, they could (and almost certainly would) have locked down a good man.’

It’s the nasty little side effect our current sex-ed never teaches women…emotional heartbreak. Those mantras they spout out are covering up the hurt that they gave their most intimate thing to someone who wasn’t their spouse and got back nothing nothing but the heartbreak.

‘These women, consumed with pride, can never be content in any state, much less whatever state, they find themselves. If married they would soon be unhaaaapppy because of the discontent arising from their pride.’

And that’s why this nasty sin needs to be addressed more instead of being celebrated by Christians in the roundabout way and by the seculars in a rainbow flag way…it’s what kicked Lucifer out of heaven. It’s what lured Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit…and it’s what leads people away from God.

These women are so arrogant and puffed up they think they, as never-married women with a string of failed relationships under their belts, can instruct young Christian women on how to forge successful relationships and marriages.

It’s just mind-blowing when you think about it.

No one in the Christian community ever calls these women out on it. The reason they won’t is because calling them out on it would be “cruel” and “mean-spirited” and “sexist”.

“Griffith’s bio at the bottom of this page says she graduated with her Bachelors degree in 1986. Assuming she was 18 when she graduated high school and only took 4 years to get her Bachelors that would put her at 53 today.”

She should be a grandmother now.

Funny how so many “hot women” just can’t find an “acceptable man” who will put a ring on it. Maybe they’ll find solace in their carousel riding memories, and while they’ll never children or grandchildren, they can tell themselves that they slept with some truly awesome men. Because God wanted them to do that.

What blows me away is that someone like Pat Robertson would endorse this tripe. Seculars see him as some kind of Bible thumping monster out of “A Handmaid’s Tale.” Are things really that hopeless on the Protestant side of the aisle?

What blows me away is that someone like Pat Robertson would endorse this tripe. Seculars see him as some kind of Bible thumping monster out of “A Handmaid’s Tale.” Are things really that hopeless on the Protestant side of the aisle?

See the beginning of the Preface via the Look Inside feature at Amazon. She credits Robertson with inspiring her to write the book.

All the peptalk of “you go girl” and social media likes of “you’re so beautiful how could ____ dump you!? The right guy will come along” surely doesn’t help.

And of course, I can imagine a ‘young’ (haha, that’s relative) woman explaining to her family the guy is “good enough” and all the family and all the pop culture and pastors will say not to go for good enough because she’s better than that. And maybe she was…. a few years before 30.

Though, physical attraction I think is important to the marriage. Now we have 30yr old women settling for betas who are forced to settle for past-prime carousel riders. Can the “marriage-advice” get any worse?

‘What blows me away is that someone like Pat Robertson would endorse this tripe. Seculars see him as some kind of Bible thumping monster out of “A Handmaid’s Tale.” Are things really that hopeless on the Protestant side of the aisle?’

It doesn’t help that we ran all the alphas out of the church a couple generations ago at the minimum. We’re breeding better beta’s at this point.

It wouldn’t matter (as much) if the social pressure of the church was to get married quickly and pop out babies. But instead they’ve fully absorbed the world’s approach of sex first, then marriage and not more than 2 kids.

You may object that they all preach abstinence from the pulpit. I’ll counter by noticing that preachers and congregants alike all look the other way while their sons and daughter date around and date long term (anything longer than 5 months and I’ll all but guarantee they’re having sex).

More real social pressure is brought against those who decide to marry young or have more than 2 kids than those who have premarital sex.

The ‘Christian’ book publishing industry and its chains like Lifeway are despicable in the things they promote. Just as in the secular word, all “Christian” radio & TV personalities, celebrity pastors, etc are always assisting the authors with promoting this trash. And then when their book comes out the favor is returned. A den of whores and blasphemers to maximize sales, and if lucky enough, a sermon series & Bible study component to market to the mega-churches. These frauds make the temple money-changers look like saints.

“I have now come to the conclusion never again to think of marrying, and for this reason; I can never be satisfied with anyone who would be blockhead enough to have me.” ~ Abraham Lincoln, 1 April 1838

“It doesn’t help that we ran all the alphas out of the church a couple generations ago at the minimum.”

Did we really run them out, or did the societal pressure back then to conform and at least appear to be church going make them go, while they continued to bang all the girls they could, though far more discretely than today?

My late mother told me that back in the 1950’s in Southern California that most of her high school female classmates rode the carousel, though they were discrete about it; though she also told me that some would brag about their carousel days among the ladies after marrying and having kids (hopefully hubby’s, but my mother had her doubts about that with some of the ladies). They also rode the carousel for far less time than today’s sluts, as they would marry a yucky beta provider shortly after finishing high school, instead of waiting until the were old and had an N formerly only associated with the world’s oldest profession.

My mother also told me that she and Dad were invited, more than once, to a “wife swapping party” in the 1960’s. This was within “conservative” churchgoing Republican circles. I guess people really lost their minds back then.

Wendy doesn’t need a husband. She is great as she is. This is fortunate for all of us, as she is unlikely to find one. Go Wendy! Be free! (Preferably far away from the rest of us.)

Wendy is unaware of the Three Date Rule, which she makes clear when stating that “the man should pay”. If after three dates, a woman has paid for nothing, she makes it clear that she is there to be entertained. A man will notice this, and will view the woman as his entertainment. He will continue seeing her as long as he is getting his dollar’s worth in entertainment, but that woman will never be a wife candidate. Those arrangements (don’t call them “relationships”) typically last from 2 to 7 months, as Wendy’s example illustrates.﻿

‘Women like us may stay single for awhile longer, as it takes a special man to handle everything that we are. Because to make ourselves less in order to be pleasing to a man is simply not something we are willing to do.’

That does take a special man…the type of man who has no hint of masculinity or authority in his marriage.

Core tenet, not “core tenant”. Please.“These men will never understand women like us. Women who love with all our heart, mind, body, and soul. Women who refuse to settle for mediocre but hold out for magical. Women who believe that love should never be average or lukewarm or just “okay” but life-changing and earth-shaking and boundary-breaking.”Absolutely amazing that they have these expectations. I don’t believe Jesus would be qualified to be their boyfriend, much less their husband.

“Absolutely amazing that they have these expectations. I don’t believe Jesus would be qualified to be their boyfriend, much less their husband.”

There is a cartoon that makes its way around the “manosphere” which I won’t post here due to it’s somewhat graphical nature. Said cartoon shows a woman in bed with a man who is having what appears to be a post coital nap. Hanging from the a chair is his Superman costume, so we are led to believe that the couple are Clark Kent and Lois Lane. Lois is awake and sitting up, pondering if the mighty Kal-El of Krypton is the best she can get.

No man is good enough for these woman, who will frivorce them once the tingles begin to fade.

@Gary – I know that they were not some sort of utopia. My point was that with a great deal of societal pressure to conform and put on appearances (which has all but vanished today) the situation wasn’t any better than today and having alphas attend church made not a lick of difference.

She should be well into menopause at that point. Does she still get the “tingles” and even if she does, I would think that the “high value” man that would be her peer in age can bed much younger women than her. I’m sure that many fat, poor, bald men would be happy to bang her, but they aren’t on her “acceptable man” list.

“As long as you’re in this moment, as a single woman, LOVING YOURSELF, thriving where you are at, deciding to live as big and bold and brave of a life as you can, regardless of whether you are flying solo or not.” ~ Mandy Hale

2 Timothy 3:2 For men will be LOVERS OF SELF, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, [a]haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of [b]godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

Women have a worse time dealing with rejection than men. Some this is ego salve to convince themselves that they actually did the rejecting. If you are a prize to be won, then you must have turned him down & not the other way around.

When I was single, women offering such advice (pre Internet so in books & magazines) generally listed marriage amount their qualifications. It’s shocking women look to them for advice when married women still exist to offer it. I guess their market is women their age & not young 20s.

The game related answer to the problem of modern women having overdosed on you go girl moxie is there deploying the neg. I mean you can’t even date these women due to their massively over inflated egos through their hypergamy causing them to think they should all be married to a billionaire CEO. Unfortunately this also has the effect of them not caring about regular men in all forms of their life including their voting patterns.

I do try to fight back against this but it routinely gets me shunned. I spoke with my own brother about such things, as he has three little girls, while my wife was present. His response was, “oh here goes Snowden again with his hate on women”. It’s sad because I love my nieces very much and don’t want to watch them ruin their own lives due to moxie poisoning.

For the individual man trying to create a wife and family though the current answer is to learn game. I suggest using online dating and meetup groups, along with finding coffee shops and locales where a younger crowd hangs out, and going out with a lot of different women and testing the game concepts for yourself. No need to sleep with them but you will need game to bring your future wife back into a realistic view of herself. And then you will need game to keep her from getting her head overinflated during your marriage.

One thing I’ve recently tried, due to a study linked to at le chateau, is to remind women of death and the impermanence of this life. According to the study when reminded of death women suddenly find hard working betas more attractive than fly by night alphas. Perhaps there’s some way for guys to incorporate a death reminder into your game arsenal, next to the neg hit and push pull.

“She should be well into menopause at that point. Does she still get the “tingles” and even if she does, I would think that the “high value” man that would be her peer in age can bed much younger women than her. I’m sure that many fat, poor, bald men would be happy to bang her, but they aren’t on her “acceptable man” list.”

Finding myself divorced from an adulteress wife in my thirties I tried dating women that were my own age. They were awful and not fun to date, with incredibly unrealistic expectations, and were frankly quite rude at times. After a few years of dating and reading about and learning game I recently married a woman who is eleven years younger than me. A baptist.

I just imagine all the 10+ different women I courted who were in their mid thirties with me and how they somehow thought I should have been even better than I am. When I am now married to an absolutely beautiful 26 year old woman, who wears dresses (size zero dresses at that), cooks, cleans, and makes me two sandwiches every morning when she packs my lunch.

The fifty three year old men that she wants are already married, the ones that aren’t and are looking for marriage are looking at mid thirties women. Not at her. Maybe she could find a seventy year old that meets her massive list of demands.

I agree; especially in the strictly speaking sense. In practice, I think a woman’s rationalization that she has to settle is probably a prerequisite to humility. Everyone spends so much time puffing them up (including themselves) that a poor selection of sub-optimal choices is probably the only wake-up call they will get. There are plenty of males like this, too, and Steve Sailer talks about them sometimes. Tell them to dream of opening a dry cleaner, and they’ll respond that a pro scout is going to pick them up off the field/court any day now.

Some thoughts on women “humbling themselves”. Rollo frequently derives “negotiated desire”, but I think he is missing how people can hack synthetic happiness into their lives.

You can look at the TED talk on synthetic happiness, but in a sense it understanding emotions like the immune system.

We should understand that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is not a prescription, it is an observation of what people do when given lots of resources. “Self-actualization” in a resource rich environment is just unbounded hypergamy and a cancer.

Cancer is adapted to a resource rich environment with lots of sugar, fasting plus chemotherapy is more effective at treating cancer then chemo alone.

The Red Pill strategy is a sound one in that it tries to address hypergamy by being more alpha (higher status) and using dread (using loss aversion). It views attempts at effecting the demand side (female expectations) as “negotiated desire”; and ideas like women “humbling themselves” become a joke. But they are missing how shaping environment can rewire thinking.

I’ll need more feedback but I have a theory that a wife that does water only fasts will experience less hypergamy doubts. Things like fasting and hard camping in the winter will reactivate provider instincts that abundance and comfort turn off. The same way the body learns to burn more fat instead of storing it; or people raised on farms have better immune systems then city people. Fasting resets insulin sensitivity back to normal levels, and possibly hypergamy sensitivity levels as well.

So women humbling themselves means how they physically use their bodies; kneeling towards their husband will make their brain rationalize he has higher status (the same way high status posing by yourself changes brain chemistry), and if they fast / endure harsh environments. This would also be a good way to vet a women is to see how she reacts to no food.

Eve was created to fulfill Adam, yet note how many women today want a man to fulfill them. Really sad.

You give me more to digest Dalrock. I don’t want to be single the rest of my life, but that is looking quite likely because I cannot trust anyone I would find who was single even somewhat close to my age. And taking on someone who could have children has a pile of its own dangers that I expect to avoid.

You are definitely right on their attractiveness. I am in my mid 50s and both are more attractive than most I see on dating sites. The attitudes they carry are another thing, but I see that too in the profiles.

Chris,

Same reason that pipsqueak from Maryland wrote that book about kissing dating goodbye – Misery Loves Company.

Yeah, dating has had such astounding results today….

Maybe you should focus your efforts on productive things instead of beating your own dead horse?

Earl,

$$$$$$

That is a side benefit, not their main driver. Their own idiocy is the problem. They have very flawed core beliefs and acting on those leads to this foolishness. (MPAI – Most people are idiots, more than just a saying.)

snowden,

The fifty three year old men that she wants are already married, the ones that aren’t and are looking for marriage are looking at mid thirties women. Not at her. Maybe she could find a seventy year old that meets her massive list of demands.

I would consider her, even though I am that age, though I believe I would quickly see the attitudes (and/or she would see mine) and things would not continue. I would still not meet her demands or checklist, so that is not going to happen. She would be flooded by attention on dating sites though.

I am quite hesitant at thinking of someone in the 35 age range since that could bring someone with hidden baby rabbies and that is not what I want, with the likely frivorce down the line.

Good points Cane. The core idea is being content in marriage, not the exact method that started the marriage. Few things push and strongly reinforce the “be content being a helpmeet in your marriage.” Instead we mostly get messages focused on telling men to care for their wives better, actively undermining the very marriages many churches claim to be supporting. Not strengthening contentment in marriage is a major issue, but actively stirring up discontentment in marriage is even worse.

“Because to make ourselves less in order to be pleasing to a man is simply not something we are willing to do.”

Making ourselves less is the exact language we use when talking about submitting and serving God. How do you miss a ship this big? A woman is created to be a help meet for her husband. Who gets to qualify what is meet? The husband.

I think more diligence in teaching economics would probably help straighten a lot of this confusion out. There are two factors that determine an item’s value. 1. What are you able to sell the item for? 2. What is someone willing to pay for the item? Declaring an item a prize and jacking up the price means it will sit on the shelf for a long, long time until an ignorant fool comes along and buys it on impulse.

These women and their white knights are getting the cart in front of the horse. Jesus had to wear the crown of thorns before he could wear the crown of gold. These women are skipping the helpmeet and pleasing their husband to go straight to being a princess.

A grandmother that has never divorced and still speaks respectfully of her husband, now I am ok with beginning to call her a princess! This is the principle of only older women teaching younger women.

“One thing we all ought notice is how physically attractive these women are.

I know Mandy Hale isn’t the best looking woman around. But she is still quite attractive enough to pique the interest of several men.”

Most dependable, hard working (boring), blue pill, beta church guys (I was one) are not holding out for an 8 or 9. They just want a women who can cook, who wants to have kids, won’t pawn the kids off on daycare, won’ get frigid, and won’t frivorce them.

Frank K says:
July 10, 2017 at 11:08 am
What blows me away is that someone like Pat Robertson would endorse this tripe. Seculars see him as some kind of Bible thumping monster out of “A Handmaid’s Tale.” Are things really that hopeless on the Protestant side of the aisle?

That’s becasue Pat is a freemason, a false Christian. TBN, CBN, and all the major “christian” networks are controlled and have been controlled for awhile by Jesuits.

@BillyS “I am quite hesitant at thinking of someone in the 35 age range since that could bring someone with hidden baby rabbies and that is not what I want, with the likely frivorce down the line.”

It’s worse than that. Once you eliminate the frivorcees, the women with one or more illegitimate children, those that are married, and the poster children for the fat-acceptance movement, mostly all that’s left are the ridden hard, put away wet carousel riders who desperately want the validation that comes from someone putting a ring on it, and some kids, but they don’t have the character to turn from their wicked ways and to be a good wife and mother.

Better to look in the mid-20s. Harder to find one that will overlook the age gap, but you’re more likely to find one worth having.

Was going to comment but it seems that my bretheren have it fully covered 🙂

Will say though, somebody who settles, are those who where horse playing all along.
Also, Dalrock, PLEASE don’t use the ESV nor any of the new world order per-versions. 1769 KJV all the way, unless you know Hebrew and Koine Greek and directly translate them from there.

“What blows me away is that someone like Pat Robertson would endorse this tripe. Seculars see him as some kind of Bible thumping monster out of ‘A Handmaid’s Tale’. Are things really that hopeless on the Protestant side of the aisle?”

Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Bravo! Griffith is reselling the Christian Kosher version of the Disney Princess fantasy to premenopausal never-married spinsters. My God, it’s one of the best niche market profit model I’ve ever seen perpetrated in Christian culture. Bravo!

I used to think negative thoughts about my ex-wives, but after looking at these bitchy, prideful, entitled spinsters I realize my ex-wives were pretty awesome in comparison. They failed in their Christian duty but at least they didn’t think they were Disney Princesses. Thanks Dalrock.

“These are highly educated, very successful women and one after another they were saying they couldn’t find a partner. How could it be that all these amazing, attractive intelligent women were lamenting about their ability to find a partner?” she said.

I wonder. It’s amazing how the article even explicitly says it has nothing to do with “selfish” women wanting a career! Instead, relationships will just have to be accepting of the man making less and women making more. That will happen… yeah right.

I’ve got $10 for the first gal who can plausibly make a scriptural argument as to why God endorses freezing their eggs. C’mon Pearls of Great Price, what creative use of scripture will justify the cost of ovum cryogenics?

‘That’s like one of the best lines from the 1985 movie, “Better Off Dead” where actor Curtis Armstrong of Booger fame says “I’ve been going to this high school for seven and a half years…I’m no dummy.”’

Not the first time I’ve heard someone, especially a “conservative Christian” tell women they’re prizes to be squabbled over, like Britain and Russia doing the Great Game over Afghanistan. In the following video courtesy of MGTOW 101, five time divorced celebrity Steve Harvey tells a woman asking about her long time boyfriend not committing that she’s a prize to be had, and he means it in the sexual way. Of course, all the gals and white knights in the audience cheer on. BTW, if me, Dalrock, or anyone in this forum told women their bodies were trophies to be won, we would be labeled as misogynist pricks.

‘The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.’

There you go…a woman never compromises, the men have to be the ones who do better. Too bad higher education is a mostly a den of man-hating ethos though. Trade school Billy who has actual skills isn’t good enough for the woman who has a masters in Man Hating…errr Women’s Studies.

Good luck freezing those eggs, if her standards are unrealistic in her prime what makes her think they’ll change when she gets older and the eggs grow colder.

Two things:
1) “…I chose for years to stand there waiting for someone to look at me and actually SEE me. To love me. To treat me like I was ENOUGH. When really, he was the one who was lacking. Lacking in depth. Lacking in character. Lacking in honesty. Lacking in integrity. I thought I wasn’t enough for him…”
..In other words, he was an arsehole. An arsehole to whom you gave your sexual approval.
And as good men on the Manosphere know, arseholes get a lot of sex. Good men do not.

2) Lori Gottlieb was right to point out what she did – that marrying early was better. She didn’t package it all that well. In the West, marrying early means “settling”. A young woman who is married is then off the sexual market. Her priorities change. When she talks about her priorities, her unmarried counterparts start feeling bad about themselves, because they don’t have what she has. So they hamsterise by saying that the young married woman in question “settled”, where of course, they haven’t.

In Eastern Europe and Russia there is a saying that older women say to younger ones:
“If you want to be married to a General, then marry a Lieutenant”
-Find a young man with drive, with a plan, with some proven skills, get married and support him.

Or Bluto from Animal House, after they get kicked out:
“Ugh! Seven years of college down the drain!”

Both these guys were happy being students indefinitely. And I strongly suspect both Mandy and Wendy prefer being single, all their protestations aside. Look at what they do, rather than what they say. They are well off, privileged, and would still receive plenty of male attention – even Wendy at 53, who is well above average in looks for her age. But the nonsense they are spouting would be harmful to young women who do want to get married and who don’t have their advantages.

@earlthomas786: “…she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.”

Then we would have to undo the following:
– Putting active young boys on Ritalin in grade school, which dulls their natural activity and inquisitiveness (making school boring for them).
– Making schoolboys compete head-to-head with girls in subjects in which they are inferior due to maturity (e.g. writing or art).
– Scholarships biased toward increasing the number of women in college. They already far outnumber men. But I suspect a “men only” scholarship program would be unthinkable.
– Culture of suspicion of men in college, which drives them out, or to the fringes.
– Preferential hiring for women college grads, especially PhDs.
– Much of Title IX.

Christian marriage is over. In the next ten years churches will be having a ‘cat ministry’ to help all these ‘amazing’ women care for their houses or apartments full of cats. Don’t you dare not give or not support it!!!!! She’s worth it!!!!

Awhile back, I was at a ‘seminar’ at a large evangelical church here in Fresno. It was about prayer. It was an okay seminar…..but at the end, the presenter asked all the men to stand (which was about 90% of the attendees), raise their right hand, and PROMISE TO JESUS that we would *listen* to the women in our lives, because they have so much to offer, and we in the Christian faith have not given them a *voice* and it its about time we did!

Thunderous applause and “amens” shouted. I refused to stand. Women in my life? My mother has been dead since 2009. I don’t hang with women. I know a few, general decorum and politeness always given and granted but as for “women in my life”??????? None, and I don’t owe a woman a voice just because she happens to be a woman.

I give credit to two of my fellow Salvationists who came with me to this seminar. Both men. Both married. They refused to stand as well.

Rollo Tomassi, that first article contains so much nonsense. Essentially, it’s more female self-worship.

“These are highly educated, very successful women and one after another they were saying they couldn’t find a partner. How could it be that all these amazing, attractive intelligent women were lamenting about their ability to find a partner?” she said.

Highly educated? Very successful? Amazing? Attractive? Intelligent? Only in their own minds.

* Highly educated? Yeah, in useless, easy degrees.

* Very successful? While there will be exceptions, I’d guess that most of these “very successful” women are middle-management, paper-pushers. They “work” for companies producing nothing of any worth (e.g. marketing, branding, cosmetics, public relations, etc.).

I say “work,” as in coming in to the office, gossiping, checking Facebook and Twitter, holding useless “meetings,” going to lunch, shopping, coming back to the office for more gossiping, more Facebook, some back-stabbing, maybe several chatty phone calls, then going home.

* Amazing? That’s boilerplate. All woman, we are told, are “amazing.”

Attractive? Odds are most are average or below average, with a few above average.

The article says these women are unmarried in their late 30s because men are “intimidated” by them. I doubt that. Most “career women” are insipid and self-centered, as can be seen from the articles that quote them.

“…she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.”

The main reason she’s suggesting this is because women with college degrees feel icky marrying men who don’t have them, even if those men would otherwise make great husbands. In their mind, those degrees have elevated them to a higher social status. Do we really need to send more people to college purely to satisfy women’s hypergamy? I would argue college isn’t for everyone, and once you get past a certain point all you doing is feeding credential inflation without increasing overall productivity.

CSI. Very true. College for me was a small, private liberal-arts education in Vermont on a residential campus of brick and ivy. I was trained to be a schoolteacher (after my student teaching in the 1992-1993 academic year, there was NO WAY I was going to teach children. I loved the kids, and they loved me…but the hostile women in the field drove me out…….). It also involved a lot of drinking, skiing, pranks, and silliness. So four years wasted, and my parents who footed the bill and were FURIOUS that they paid 20K a year for this education for me to be a schoolteacher and now I didn’t want to be one. Boy they were mad. So I went to grad school. I borrowed for that (and paid it back btw, all 75K of it took me just over 20 years!) Got an advanced degree in the STEM field, and went to work for IBM for well over a decade.

Nothing wrong with higher education, but I tell younger men, go for the STEM fields, or if you DO have a passion for history, art, or a softer degree…….fine, but don’t gripe, whine or b*tch about your financial or employment options afterward. I also encourage the trades…..my one cousin became a barber. He has his own hip barber shop in New England…and is making a decent living and he LIKES what he does.

I always wondered about art degrees. Isn’t there, say, art schools or seminars that can teach you watercolor painting or marble sculpting, that can teach you the basics for a few hundred dollars rather than dole out thousands of dollars (most likely not the student’s money) a semester to some four year college where the only thing you will learn is painting with your own poop? Frankly, the first option seems more logical.

Exactly rocko. A lot of “arts” based degrees are worthless. My old roommate has a BFA from Fresno State. He actually makes a LIVING with an art degree. He’s good. He has a passion for it, and his work (he’s a muralist, faux finishes and the like) are all over town (childrens bedrooms, all the murals inside Valley Childrens Hospital, the Odwalla Plant, Sunmaid Raisins). He once told me “I learned ‘theory’ in college, which is okay…but most of my training came from me practicing, working, and doing!” He owns a house, likes what he does….but he also knows it takes a “passion” and “hard work” to make an full-on arts based degree work.

I understand and defend a ‘liberal arts backed and based education’ to be well rounded in general terms, but its not a requirement for a good life, or an enriched life. Sure, I enjoyed some of my classes in undergrad that were ‘required’ that had nothing to do with my direct field of study…and I am thankful for that…..but to sell it as “truth”? No, I don’t buy it.

Writer, and Fresno native William Saroyan once said of “creative writing” classes and degrees in this field:

“Yeah, I’m guilty, I took a class in this….once. Look, you want to be a writer? Then sit down at your typewriter and write. Learn structure, proper tense, language rules….you don’t need a class, or a degree for this, the library is full of books on how to do this. Then as you write. Drive yourself and want it, the stories come. The imagination grows. The knowledge of what you want to say and how you want to say it will come. You don’t need a degree to become a good writer, or journalist”

“…she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.”

The cluelessness is astonishing. The entire education industry has been forcibly engineered to artificially create the illusion of female success. I guess it was effective, because these women actually think they are legitimately brilliant.

>Women like us may stay single for awhile longer, as it takes a special man to handle everything that we are.

If a man were to say or write this, I would assume he was engaging in parody, or hyperbole; unless he was foolish he would not actually have an ego that large.
As women are the weaker sex however (1 Pet 3), this type of immaturity is apparently not only possible, but worthy of publicity. I would try to hide it if I had been so immature or foolish (Prov 17:27-28).

We don’t need to force more men into university, to get brainwashed by the progs. We just need to stop pushing women there. And we need to stop lying to women and start telling them the truth. We do not care about your degrees or your career. A degree does not mean you are intelligent. And a woman’s “career” is almost invariably a government job or a job created by government regulations, that is not actually productive or market facing. Even our esteemed host’s wife is in a non market facing government job.

I really just cannot respect any of these women’s achievements because the entire system is rigged in their favor and massively rigged against white men. Of course these very “intelligent successful” women will never understand. Just point and laugh while they go crazy coming to grips that millions of years of motherhood ends in their shriveled up wombs.

They are the perfect candidate for self marriage. The only perfect spouse is herself. They absolutely love herself like a narcissist (Dorian Gray) with a hidden painting of her faults that she refuses to see. She loves herself. She gives marriage advice since misery loves company. More spinsters make her feel better. Women over 30 should panic. Women over 40 should get some cats.

rocko @ 7:58 pm:
“I always wondered about art degrees. Isn’t there, say, art schools or seminars that can teach you watercolor painting or marble sculpting, that can teach you the basics for a few hundred dollars rather than dole out thousands of dollars (most likely not the student’s money) a semester to some four year college where the only thing you will learn is painting with your own poop? Frankly, the first option seems more logical.”

Not all art schools are the same. A guy in my extended family graduated with an arts degree in computer animation and makes twice as much as I do despite being much younger. No, computer animation isn’t STEM. He was never a math type.

But you have to have the gift. That particular guy was a lifelong artist just for fun. Send that guy to art school, you get a phenomenon. Send a frat boy to art school, you get stick drawings of nudes. It’s the difference between teaching Scripture to a believer and teaching it to an atheist. They can both learn the rules but only one of them cares about why the rules.

All higher learning is like that, which is why things like the humanities were taught to engineering students. It was understood they weren’t merely seeking trade skills; they wanted to truly understand, so you make sure to teach them all the basics of Western civilization, not just the relevant sciences.

As a result, I don’t like the STEM acronym. It presupposes that higher education only consists of materialist, marketable pursuits. Things like art are important, too, or do we want another tastelessly bland strip mall in our neighborhood?

anonymous_ng says:
July 10, 2017 at 7:17 pm““…I chose for years to stand there waiting for someone to look at me and actually SEE me. To love me. To treat me like I was ENOUGH.”

Sounds to me like the experience of most men albeit without the whiny poor little be B.S.

“Enough” for most women (especially past early twenties) was 30-60 pounds ago.

I have a tactic for, as opportunity presents, gut-shooting female credentialism (and the hypergamy it exacerbates). That is, I take every opportunity when the subject of women and degrees arises, to blatantly point out that I don’t consider college degrees that didn’t involve either or both of Calculus or medical care to be degrees, AT ALL, that they DON’T COUNT AS COLLEGE DEGREES, not even a little bit. When pressed, I will add that certain degrees, like Wymyn’s “Studies” or ANY degree awarded by a college of “Education” I count negatively, that their intellectual competence has been reduced, not increased. That is, a high school graduate with a B.A. in Education anything, I deem on the level of a 10th-grade dropout. Commonly, anyone present with such a resume will be so apoplectic, they’re silent from speechlessness (if still visibly highly agitated). Win-win IMO…

“All higher learning is like that, which is why things like the humanities were taught to engineering students. It was understood they weren’t merely seeking trade skills; they wanted to truly understand,”

I think this comprehensive 4+ years liberal arts-style is probably only really suited for a minority of people though. Most people would be better off with a trades school-like training and/or on-the-job training.

When pressed, I will add that certain degrees, like Wymyn’s “Studies” or ANY degree awarded by a college of “Education” I count negatively, that their intellectual competence has been reduced, not increased

Ask a Wymynz Studeez major(ette) if “earning” such a degree makes her an expert in all aspects of womanhood. She will of course enthusiastically respond in the affirmative. Then proceed to ask her detailed questions on gynocological physionomy and neuropsychiatry and watch her blank stare turn to panic and then to rage as she can’t answer a single one of your questions.

At CBN Pat Robertson introduced Griffith’s book as one that every Christian girl and single woman should read:

I agree with Robertson. Every woman and girl should have copies of this book as reminders of how long they could end up waiting for husbands if their expectations of men as well as their own assessments of themselves are too high.

To Griffith’s credit, though, she does at least espouse sexual purity, at least according to some of the reviews on Amazon and even claims to be a virgin, according to one review of her book:

In contrast, a review of Hale’s book, “I’ve Never Been to Vegas, but My Luggage Has,” claims Hale wrote that she lived with her boyfriend and that Hale apparently doesn’t condemn this practice for Christians (or maybe just doesn’t condemn the participants themselves):

Of course, since these are just reviews of their books, we’d have to actually gain access to the applicable passages in their books to know the stories as told by Griffith and Hale.

Nevertheless, Griffith and Hale have probably each rejected scores to hundreds of men, since as has been noted, they’re both attractive enough or have been attractive enough to appeal to a wide variety of guys. Maybe I shouldn’t be so presumptuous, but I have a hard time thinking God has simply had them “waiting for the best” and tend to think that instead, their places in life are a just a direct result of rejecting perfectly good men.

Maybe I’d have to read Griffith and Hale’s books to get a better feel, but anyway, one of the best articles I’ve ever read related to the subject of the idea of “the one” and attraction was in an old article written by a man named Ross Clark called, “Preparing for singleness when you’d much rather be preparing for marriage.” I think I found it mentioned in a comment over on Vox Day’s site once. I don’t remember where I heard this, because I can’t find a time stamp anywhere in the URL below, but I believe I heard that the article was written in 1997, obviously, well before the manosphere existed, but the article’s about as Red Pill as it gets from my perspective. I wish I’d had a copy of this article in 1997:

…if they were to admit the reality of who gets the relationships and who doesn’t – that it is about your own natural attraction, not whether God ‘has’ someone for you. Those who are attractive don’t need to stay in Christian circles to get what they want; those who aren’t are left with nothing to stay for.

Of course, while I still believe God can and does bring people together in ways that we might perceive as supernatural, I’m not sure I believe this is the norm for most people or even most evangelical Christians.

When my wife of 35 years met me, I hadn’t bathed in 3 weeks. There was much else wrong with me. She was 18, fixed what she could, married me in 5 months still 28 and got busy being a wife and mother. Now we’re both better people thanks to Christ and the fact she settled very early for someone she could help, rather than someone who “deserved” her. All any of us deserve is hell. If we commit to Christ we get mercy instead. She committed to help me. She now has 4 children and 2 grand daughters who love her and a grateful husband who is respected. She settled and made abundant life. I love her.

When my wife of 35 years met me, I hadn’t bathed in 3 weeks. There was much else wrong with me. She was 18, fixed what she could, married me in 5 months still 18 and got busy being a wife and mother. Now we’re both better people thanks to Christ and the fact she settled very early for someone she could help, rather than someone who “deserved” her. All any of us deserve is hell. If we commit to Christ we get mercy instead. She committed to help me. She now has 4 children and 2 grand daughters who love her and a grateful husband who is respected. She settled and made abundant life. I love her.

Yesterday was a great day: my little nephew received the result of his bachelors degree 2:1. His girlfriend – who in her Facebook photos certainly looks like a Party Girl – was awarded a First and in Engineering and not only that but has been fast tracked via a universally known engineering company straight to a three year Phd.

My sister who told me all this spent twice as long in her E Mail talking about the Bimbo as she did her own son. I think however that her hopes of a daughter-in-law will not in the new circumstances be forthcoming. Her Majesty’s Government make no secret of the fact that they reward Academia and Industry for favouring female STEM candidates over men even as the birth rate sinks below replacement level.

“And I strongly suspect both Mandy and Wendy prefer being single, all their protestations aside.”

This.

What’s there to bemoan, dating apps give them all the young sexy they can handle. A well maintained, educated, financially independent woman is living the life of Leonardo DiCaprio.

Just step back a little and take a look at the forest, not the trees.

They’re not expressing discontent, they’re wallowing in smugness and delight at their lives. Polite society doesn’t allow them (yet) to trash marriage so they have to coat their message with a veneer of regret.

True regret creates whaling and gnashing of teeth, self flagellation, humility and remorse, I don’t see a grain of this in these women.

They regret no getting married like they regret not winning the lotto, yeh it would have been nice but what are you gonna do.

While Dalrock’s message holds for a majority of women, there is certainly a segment that never really wanted to marry anyway.

We need FEWER people going to college. That includes all of the following:
-fewer women in general, as most of them are too dull and too disinclined to take STEM majors, and we demographically in any event need them to marry and have multiple children while in their 20s, so need to not waste their fertile time/avoid college loan indebtedness making them even less marriageable/giving their hypergamy steroids from credentialism;
-fewer students who can’t pay the whole tuition without any loans or help from our government which is rapidly going too broke to help any more;
-fewer foreign nationals (if they’re good, they too often take STEM degrees home to help their countries compete with the U.S.; if crummy, they’re using up government support to the college, even if not helped directly, plus who needs more Muslims learning Nuclear Engineering, Propellant Chemistry, how to make poison gas or engineering pathogenic microbes, etc.);
-fewer people pursuing non-STEM/non-trades fields;
-fewer nonwhites in college period (except for the Asians, nearly all are too dull to belong there, dragging down everything in and post-college, expecting more affirmative action/government jobs, becoming anti-white/anti-conservative political activists, etc.);
-fewer people studying in ANY major that people in it on a net basis do damage to the country (Keynesian economics, women’s studies, environmental activism, Education college anything, homosexual studies, ethnic studies, pro-socialist political science, social work, “alternative” medicine quackery, pro-consumption stuff like Marketing//Advertising/Fashion Design, non-Christian theology, any Christian seminary/theology that is not conservative and Bible-based, etc.);
-fewer students attending (and thus empowering/encouraging) any liberal colleges for anything at all;
-fewer women students taking up scarce slots in places like Medical school that on average will not make proper use of it (too many go into less-demanding fields like Family Medicine over Surgery or Emergency Medicine, and go part-time/drop out of that career field entirely way earlier than do men).

I already thought of another field in which NO women need to attend college, and that’s ROTC, whether just as scholarships (which should all go to men as women damage the military outside of nursing/stateside clerical billets) or inevitably damaging the military colleges by their presence. The latter includes not just the U.S. military service academies, but also Norwich, the Citadel, Virginia Military Institute, etc.

For those women willing to actually pray, pray for a spirit of humility, respect and submission towards men. This will be a hard one as the female consensus, and popular culture delights in tearing down men.

Do not read contemporary Christian advice/inspirational/OMG I’m so awesome because I am a Christian woman!, books.

A first recommendation is Catherine Marshall’s “A man called Peter”, published 1951. It is a biography of her late husband. It is a first person account of love, respect, and followership. Catherine Marshall was a strong woman who never called herself a strong woman. She just picked up the pieces of young widowhood with a small child, and rebuilt her life.

Imagine a 65 year old man who worked in the mailroom his entire career writing a book on climbing the corporate ladder, and the full hubris of Griffith writing this book comes to light.

It gets even worse. If this man were to write a book as suggested, one could say it’s just wishful thinking on his part. But if he claims that the best way to climb the corporate ladder is to work in the mail room for 40 years, he’d be getting close to what Wendy Griffith tried to do in her book. And to encourage all new hires, young and old, to read the book? Inexplicable.

Almost no women her age look like she does — she’s in the top ~5% of women who are in their mid-50s, no question. I know a couple of women who are roughly as attractive as she is who are in that age range as well — they are also both single. What I have observed with women who are that attractive in that age range is that they are exceptionally picky when it comes to men — likely that’s the product of having turned all sorts of male heads for 35+ years.

Most of these women have always been the prettiest or among the 2-3 prettiest women in every room they have walked into since they were teens — a woman who looks that way at 53 is generally a combination of special genetics AND a lot of work (exercise, diet, surgery). They are entitled because they have had men’s eyes on them for decades, and still have men’s eyes on them in their mid-50s. It’s very hard for women who are like that to be “realistic” about what kind of man they should be looking at for marriage, due to the avalanche of attention they have always gotten, and still get, from men. It’s very hard for them to be realistic, or to be humble, when they get the attention that they do from all kinds of men — a woman like Griffith will attract the eyes of most men between 30 and 70+, even if the 30 yo guys are just looking, she still sees their eyes on her. That goes to a woman’s head — it just does. This is even more amplified today, with the internet and social media, but really the in person attention women like this get is extreme and notable, and it definitely forms them. I don’t think women who are like this have great prospects for getting married, even relative to other women of that age, for this reason — they are exceptionally picky because they are dealing with a huge avalanche of male attention, both online and in real life, and that attention makes it hard if not impossible to be realistic about marriage prospects among men.

Of course, there are VERY few women who look like she does at that age. This is why any woman who listens to what Griffith has to say in her book is crazy — Griffith is an outlier, and most 53 yo women are not in that situation in terms of attractiveness. And that’s leaving aside that she’s never actually, you know, gotten married herself. A woman who is in her late 40s or early to mid 50s who thinks she is like Griffith and follows her advice is most likely being rather foolish because she probably isn’t anything like Griffith.

It gets even worse. If this man were to write a book as suggested, one could say it’s just wishful thinking on his part. But if he claims that the best way to climb the corporate ladder is to work in the mail room for 40 years, he’d be getting close to what Wendy Griffith tried to do in her book. And to encourage all new hires, young and old, to read the book? Inexplicable.

Ha! He could hand out copies at his retirement party as the company shuffles him out the door. And of course, he would need to dedicate it:

To my upcoming promotion to management with a corner office. I know it will have been worth the wait.

Guys, there comes a time when we have to start being constructive. What can a Christian woman do to start finding a husband?

1. Be realistic in their demands. Men are humans too, and imperfect.
2. Know what men want: respect and support. Men are not impressed by a chain of college degrees.
3. Be chaste. No reasonable man is proud that his future spouse has gone through the high school football team.
4. Have astounding domestic skills. A woman can’t nurture if she can’t cook. And a woman who can’t nurture is not fit for marriage.
5. Know what commitment means. Women still file 70% of all divorces, and still get cash and prizes for wrecking their families. How does this encourage men to marry?
6. Learn how to be agreeable. The “strong, independent woman” and the “heady, obstinate, hypertension-inducing woman” are exactly alike.
7. Learn to keep their mouths shut. Marriage is for 2 people, not for Facebook friends. A woman who exposes her man to the world is not fit to be a wife.
8. Learn how to manage money. They don’t have to buy something just because it’s on sale. It’s hard to make money.
9. Be feminine. Masculine energy from women is ugly and a turnoff.
10. Be selfless. It’s not all about them. A sense of entitlement kills love. Every time.
11. Pray fervently for a husband. They don’t have a husband because they didn’t ask God for one.
12. Enlist others who might be able to help. There is no shame in wanting a husband.
Sounds desperate? Yes. We don’t achieve much in anything until we get desperate.

In short, single women desiring marriage should become marriageable women.
The simple reason why many women remain unmarried is because they are unmarriageable. Single men are everywhere looking for marriageable women.

If men are thing their own way by choice women might as well do the same. The difference is the women claiming it is a strategy to GET married while men are avoiding marriage.

Everyone settles because the alternative is perfect information by dating everyone and exploring everything in the world. Information is costly. When my Econ professor went over that idea with regards to marriage everyone gasped but it is obviously true. And the reason kindness and forgiveness are so crucial in life and marriage. We are all imperfect but can be very happy with someone who meets most our standards and has no toxic flaws.

Almost no women her age look like she does — she’s in the top ~5% of women who are in their mid-50s, no question…

Most of these women have always been the prettiest or among the 2-3 prettiest women in every room they have walked into since they were teens — a woman who looks that way at 53 is generally a combination of special genetics AND a lot of work (exercise, diet, surgery).

Indeed. Griffith has aged incredibly well. She is a newscaster, so you would expect her to look better than most women. But even compared to other newscasters, she looks extremely young. Compare her with the early 50s women you see on your local news channel, or even Fox News. She looks better than Kimberly Guilfoyle, who (at 48) is five years younger than her.

Given how well she has aged, I tend to believe her when she claims to be a virgin*. Even very attractive women who are on the carousel tend to get a jaded/hardened look over the years. Note how much better Griffith looks than Hale in their exchange. If you didn’t know going in that Griffith was 15 years older than Hale, would you not guess Hale was a good deal older than Griffith? Even the better pictures of Hale show a striking hardness. See for example the one on the upper left of her Amazon page: https://www.amazon.com/Mandy-Hale/e/B007A8Q3II

*I haven’t seen this claim, but someone made it upthread I believe and it would go with her warning against “recreational kissing” prior to marriage. By contrast, Hale wrote an article on virginity for Glamour, and her conclusion was that a woman’s N shouldn’t matter, men need to treat them all as princesses. https://www.glamour.com/story/virginity-popular-single-woman

Kate
March 26, 2017 at 8:53 PM
You want to know why men don’t like you? You think you’re too good for them. It’s extremely unattractive. Even repulsive. Long hair, feminine clothing, ability to flirt…none of that will do anything for a woman whose heart is stuffed with unwarranted pride. Humble yourself and you will find what you seek.

(worth reposting from donal’s)

More recent thoughts: the “perfection” people seek in a relationship is not even possible prior to commitment. It’s the act of choosing, itself, that causes a person to become special. Once done, “perfection” can result as an emergent property when the “magic” of the process has been allowed to happen. However, it can never exist singly, which is why waiting for the “perfect” partner is foolish. Leap before you reap.

I know a couple of women who are roughly as attractive as she is who are in that age range as well — they are also both single.

In addition to your theory, it is also reasonable to expect that women who never got married or raised a family ought to look better than other women who have had those experiences.

1. Being a wife and mother is hard, let’s face it. Living to please a husband, and being there for the children, considering their unending and sometimes complicated demands, ultimately take a toll. The sleepless nights; the fights with the spouse; the problems with the in-laws; the rebellion of the kids in their teenage years, etc., all hasten the aging process. Not to talk of the very process of pregnancy and childbirths, both of which cause irreversible changes to the body of the woman.
Yes, the wife and mother is a battle-tested military General, with battle scars to prove it.

2. Unmarried women, particularly as they grow older, generally have the incentive to look their best at all times, because they are eternally on the hunt for their future spouse. They also have more time to focus on themselves. Whereas their married sisters have other priorities.

I have often observed that the average middle aged woman who has never married or raised kids tend to look more put together. But I expected that, actually.

Put it this way…if a woman says the N shouldn’t matter, she’s got a N that does matter. And I do think a lot of this being proud to love yourself stuff memes these women unleash stems from the emotional heartbreak of having sex with partners who aren’t your spouse.

Virginity in a woman is always an attractive quality…but what’s in her heart is the best indicator of what you will get.

Earl,
One of the best things about an abstinence program I got to host in my classroom for many years was a discussion of “emotional pain” as a consequence of sex. The program was secular, but it was as close to a religious program as you could get in a pubic school. I started training to become a chastity education presenter through a Catholic organization this summer, but regretfully I quit after the first “semester.” (I refused to acknowledge there were any positive outcomes of the sexual revolution 😦 ) I’m going to continue on with the materials I still have access to on my own (Theology of the Body) and see what comes of it. I doubt I would ever have been allowed to become an instructor, anyway. But, getting back to your point, emotional damage is every bit as important in avoiding as physical consequences. It’s sort of my whole passion for the topic!
-Kate

A lot of the bashing of formerly promiscuous women on this blog is dumb. It’s also counterproductive, because it shames men who have married such women (of whom I know there are several here).

Put it this way…if a woman says the N shouldn’t matter, she’s got a N that does matter. And I do think a lot of this being proud to love yourself stuff memes these women unleash stems from the emotional heartbreak of having sex with partners who aren’t your spouse.

A person ought to address such shortcomings honestly. There are women who will act all defiant when you brothers ask them of their past. These women are repressing their shame, and acting like their youthful stupidity is something to be proud of.

A self-aware Christian sister will be embarrassed of being a ho’ in her youth, and while she will be honest, she’ll also tell you frankly that she regrets her lack of self-discipline.

The feminists who tell you fellas that ‘n doesn’t matter’ are only partly lying (which is why it’s such a dangerous lie). In the age of the DNA test, virginity isn’t as big a deal any longer, because you can find other reliable ways of making sure your efforts are going to your biological offspring. Feminists have warped the judicial system to render such things irrelevant, and if you’re married to a woman who plays the ho’, you’ll likely be stuck supporting her kids regardless.

It’s also indisputable that past performance is a good predictor of future events. It’s true people can reform (and St. Paul agrees with me on this). All that aside, would you put a man with a long rap sheet for theft and embezzlement in charge of your estate? You’re taking a similar risk when you marry a woman with a past.

There are men (including some on this blog) who have successfully married a formerly promiscuous woman and made a successful go of things. There are also men (Saeed Abedini) who have married young to virginal women, and watched as these bitches went all Jenny Erickson on their ass. There are no guarantees in this world. No matter who you married, you can improve your odds by reading this (and similar) blogs, and applying the principles found therein to your own situation.

What is it about high-degree Freemason, luciferian-lion’s paw-posing-on-the-cover-of-Time-magazine (which itself is founded by luciferian skull-and-boner Henry Luce) Pat Robertson that makes you think he’s a Christian? Because he portrays himself as one?

‘But, getting back to your point, emotional damage is every bit as important in avoiding as physical consequences. It’s sort of my whole passion for the topic!’

Excellent…we need more women to point this out to the younger ones before it’s too late because what current sex-ed we have now is very lacking (mainly focusing on prevention of pregnancy and transmission of STDs). No matter how much ‘safe sex’ is promoted, there is no pill or device that protects the emotional heart break.

‘There are men (including some on this blog) who have successfully married a formerly promiscuous woman and made a successful go of things. There are also men (Saeed Abedini) who have married young to virginal women, and watched as these bitches went all Jenny Erickson on their ass. ‘

“So women humbling themselves means how they physically use their bodies; kneeling towards their husband will make their brain rationalize he has higher status (the same way high status posing by yourself changes brain chemistry), and if they fast / endure harsh environments. This would also be a good way to vet a women is to see how she reacts to no food.”

I think your on to somethings here that are good. Physical exercises like these can help people change faster than just talk/listening therapy.

The wife needs to want to change and be willing to do these things. The husband has to have the inner strength and firmness to follow through.

These women want educated house husbands
The church is training young men to fulfill this because they can see so many single women.

One of the churches I used to go to literally taught the teenage boys in youth group that all diaper changing has to be done by the men.
How much a man vacuums determines if he is a good husband… One woman actually told me this.
The men teach that this is real manliness and sacrifice
aka being a woman ( doing their tasks) is being manly….
And this is not limited to just working women. Even couples with housewives, unless the man does 50%of the chores or as Matt Chandler says “fair” he is not serving Providing , protecting and leading is not serving anymore.

These women will eventually find young husbands willing to take be their “wives” The church has brainwashed this and called it service.

Formerly promiscuous women need to be, well, not bashed. But they do need to be firmly and repeatedly reminded of the repercussions their past choices have wrought. They do need to be firmly and repeatedly corrected and redirected, lest they fall into their old behavior patterns. Oh, not the indiscriminate sex, necessarily. But formerly promiscuous women have a tendency toward pridefulness, haughtiness, callousness, cruelty, self-absorption, exhibitionism, disrespectful behavior, insubordination, solipsism, extreme emotional overreaction, making decisions based on feelings and not facts, letting their emotions run their lives, and just generally projectile vomiting their emotions all over whoever happens to be in their general proximity.

It isn’t enough for our former ho Christian sister to talk of her regret and embarrassment at her past lack of discipline and past ho’ing. They were her choices. She must never be permitted to talk of things like “mistakes” and “indiscretions” and “things that happened to her”. No. I’ll not hear such talk. They were her choices. They were her decisions. She made those choices and decisions. She made the conscious decision to have sex with a lot of guys in her youth. She made the conscious decision and choice to engage in behavior that led to the sex. It didn’t “happen to her”. She caused it to happen, by her own volition. She was not a passive bystander who just by happenstance was present when some “bad things” went down. She was an active participant. She was an active, conscious, fully aware human with full agency and full knowledge of what she was doing.

No one poured the booze down her throat. No one put the coke up her nose, forced the weed into her lungs or shot the smack into her veins. No one forced her to have indiscriminate sex with a lot of different men who didn’t care about her. She did all those things, knowingly, voluntarily and of her own free accord.

What needs to happen with such women is that they be reminded of what they did, what choices they made, and what choices they need to make to avoid falling back into old behaviors and thought/emotion patterns. It keeps them humble. It keeps their emotions in check and their lives in perspective.

Our former ho must not simply talk of regret and embarrassment. She must, of her own choosing, walk out the rest of her days in humility and repentance. And if she does this, she’ll almost certainly find a man who will have her. Will he be as hawt as the men she used to have sex with? Almost certainly not. Price she will have to pay for her past choices and decisions.

She will then be at a decision point: accept this less attractive man; or remain single and unmarried. I’ll let the commentariat decide whether this is the dilemma Mandy Hale finds herself in.

My audience (and, I assume, Earl’s too) is the younger man who is going to get married anyway.

Your audience appears to be hardcore MGTOW types. This entire response just reads like so much virtue signalling.

The irony is that I don’t think I disagree with anything you’ve written. I’m in your target audience.

My target audience (disjoint of yours) won’t care what you’ve written. Men are hard-wired to seek out mates and raise up children. I know I can’t dissuade any of them. I just hope they’ll choose wisely, and once married, will stay on top of things by reading blogs like this.

I watched the clip but with the sound turned-off, and not just because whiny American accents grate. What I wondered do those two look like without make-up and coiffure – will I ever forget (I was in my twenties) going round to my then girlfriend’s home one morning. She was a decade older and as she opened the door and seeing her in the cold light of day, hair a mess, grey roots showing I must have done my best to hide my horror – and she had once been a model.

The analogy with the mail room clerk is not really on all-fours for the single-woman like Hale can should she choose marry tomorrow and probably marry reasonably well but the mail-room clerk can never get beyond mail-room clerking. I have seen it, the stunningly attractive woman, who may well still be virgo intacta, forever holding out for Mr Perfect and even in her fifties still out-shining women half her age – but they have youth. I was introduced once to a woman in her seventies; she had that indefinable something and so I slipped my arm around her waist and pulled her in towards me, but I released her as I instinctively felt as I held her that she would be too frail. She had never married.

Marrying a virgin decreases your chances of a divorce. It also increase marital happiness. Marrying a repentant whore just causes misery for everyone around. Don’t do it. Ever!

Given the state of contemporary womanhood, what you (and deti too) are telling young men is that they should be either celibate or join the playaz lifestyle.

Most men are not going to be celibate. It’d be just as convincing to try to browbeat them into quit drinking water. Most of the Christian men here are not going to be playaz, either. They consider that lifestyle immoral.

The fact is that healthy men are biologically hard-wired to want to marry a woman and raise up a family. Most of the American men in question will marry a woman from the United States, which means that a large number of them will marry a non-virgin.

With this in mind, your suggestion (and deti’s) are totally non-sequitur.

‘ And if she does this, she’ll almost certainly find a man who will have her. Will he be as hawt as the men she used to have sex with? Almost certainly not. Price she will have to pay for her past choices and decisions.’

It’s probably not so much that the man is ‘hawter’ than the man she marries, it’s the fact she still carries that emotional heartbreak from the breakup and from what science has ascertained…remnant DNA from him after their hookups. That’s the price they pay for the cart before horse thinking that sex somehow leads to commitment.

The women these men will marry will require constant vigilance, management and correction. These men will need to know how to game their wives, correct them firmly and repeatedly, and generally refuse to put up with one ounce of crap from any of them.

The women these men will marry will require constant vigilance, management and correction. These men will need to know how to game their wives, correct them firmly and repeatedly, and generally refuse to put up with one ounce of crap from any of them. That was the purpose of my post.

Like I said, I agreed with all of it – except, perhaps, for the implicit assumption that a virginal woman would be somehow easier to manage than a reformed “worldly” woman.

Take the best, sanest, and most grounded person of either sex, and drop them into this decadent society, and watch them start misbehaving in short order.

It’s the origin of the male microchimerism in women’s blood…which normally happens if she is pregnant with a son.

This is further muddied when they find it in women’s blood if the woman has never been pregnant or given birth to a son. Where do you suppose it came from?

You’re shifting the burden of proof now. Not nice.

The article that was posted here a couple weeks ago specifically ruled out the retention of DNA. I followed it to a couple of similar studies.

I can’t fault you completely for misquoting it, because the people who originally posted it didn’t read it either (lol). If you (and they) had read it, you’d find that the researchers don’t know the origin of the disparity. Something is happening, but it’s not well-understood.

What is known is that it’s not what you said was happening, today (i.e. DNA retention), because that’s what they specifically tested for.

The study alluded to a couple of different possibilities. Researchers thought there was a case to be made for epigenetic changes tied to immune response; but there was never any research done on this, so no one knows either way.

The most that can be said scientifically about telegony is that some DNA/hereditary evidence to support telegony has been found in fruit flies, but not other species, not mammals, and certainly not humans (at least not yet).

That said, women bear the marks and evidence of carousel riding and DNA absorption from multiple men on their faces, in their outward bodies, and their psyches. After seeing what women look like before the carousel and after, it’s pretty clear carousel riders show, as Dalrock said, jaded, hardened and coarsened facial and bodily features. That’s probably also evidence of hard living, since carouselers usually also do a combination of: heavy drinking, heavy cigarette smoking, use and abuse of legal and illegal drugs, eating crappy food, poor dental health, and poor sleep habits from staying up all night partying, drinking and f*cking.

Thanks to spinster’s like the above .. (though they are background noise to the rest of the societal forces at work).

I never like to give feminists, nor the feminist movement, too much credit. When I see the typical radical feminist, I see a smelly, unhealthy, overweight woman, or a noodle-armed manlet. These types of people are never movers and shakers, setting policy. They’re just loud-mouthed nobodies.

Specifically, I see the shrews (like the example above) as reacting to social trends. The loss of community caused by urbanism and hypermobility, for example. When people lose their important social bonds, they tend to reach out for meaning abstractly, with associations based on race and sex. Feminism is, in this analogy, sorta similar to Black Lives Matter or the KKK. It’s a way for a thoroughly deracinated person to attempt to find meaning in his or her life.

“One of the churches I used to go to literally taught the teenage boys in youth group that all diaper changing has to be done by the men.
How much a man vacuums determines if he is a good husband… One woman actually told me this.”

Wow, that is disgusting!

They never give the guys credit for mowing the lawn, fixing the cars, cleaning leaves out of the gutters, snaking a drain, etc.

You see, if you’re a long term single Christian woman, never-married, and your SMV is above an average of 7 for most of your life, well, then you can entertain the idea of making your singleness a novelty profession and write books, go on speaking tours, start a women’s ministry, and otherwise profit (for God of course) by it.

However, if you’re similarly a long term single Christian woman and your SMV is 6 or below, well, there’s always the “Jesus is my boyfriend” (literally) ceremony for you to make it official:

I don’t want you to think I’m picking on you, but I know you’re way too smart for this.

Perhaps DNA retention wasn’t the best wording but science does find that something happens to their blood. Blood retention so to speak.

It actually doesn’t find such things. Like I said earlier, I don’t blame you for thinking this, because last month someone else posted a wordy response here with all sorts of sources. I believe his primary source was a web forum called “God Like Productions”, which is, as you might have already surmised, not a peer-reviewed medical or biological journal. (lol)

There was a serious paper at the end of a lot of digging, but it basically said the opposite of what our fellow Dalrock commenter was asserting it said. I followed it to a couple of related papers.

Recently, research was done to try to ferret out why children of promiscuous female fruit flies statistically differed from children of monogamous female fruit flies. (motherfucking science!) operated from the assumption that DNA was being retained by the female from previous partners. They were able to successfully rule this out.

The fact that something seems to be happening, and the fact that we don’t know what it is, is the only thing that’s certain. One thing we do have evidence for is that it’s not what the original poster said these sources supported.

‘The fact that something seems to be happening, and the fact that we don’t know what it is, is the only thing that’s certain. One thing we do have evidence for is that it’s not what the original poster said these sources supported.’

I don’t think I’m suggesting the same thing, I mistakenly thought it was DNA instead of the blood.

They don’t know exactly how the male microchimerism gets into the female’s blood if they don’t have a son and one suggestion was sexual intercourse. Funny thing was they found for some reason an induced abortion produces more of this.

“You see, if you’re a long term single Christian woman, never-married, and your SMV is above an average of 7 for most of your life, well, then you can entertain the idea of making your singleness a novelty profession and write books, go on speaking tours, start a women’s ministry, and otherwise profit (for God of course) by it.”

translation: If you’re a hot Christian woman who’s never married, you can ride the carousel in secret, hint at your carousel riding extremely obliquely in your writings, and profit handsomely from your singleness while at the same time defrauding less attractive, less talented women into believing they can do the same things you’re doing, ending with a parachute into marriage to Studly WorshipLeaderson despite the fact that you yourself couldn’t do that even though you’re more physically attractive than 90% of the women out there.

“However, if you’re similarly a long term single Christian woman and your SMV is 6 or below, well, there’s always the “Jesus is my boyfriend” (literally) ceremony for you to make it official:”

Translation: If you’re not a hot Christian woman, you can go through a meaningless “ceremony” designed to tell all the men who rejected you to f*ck off because you’re “marrying” Jesus. This will make you feel better about your inability to attract a man, or your inability to humble yourself to accept one of the men who presented themselves to you.

Why don’t these women in Rollo’s article just become nuns and why don’t they just go through the usual ceremonies to do that and take their usual vows? Why the pomp and circumstance of faux “weddings”? Why the calling of attention to themselves?

Typically, women who eschewed marriage for religious orders were the epitome of humility and abnegation, or at least they tried to be. What these women are doing is nothing of the sort. It’s “Look at ME!!! I’m marrying Jesus!!! Aren’t I SO SPECIAL!!! All you guys who rejected me can suck it!”

They don’t know exactly how the male microchimerism gets into the female’s blood if they don’t have a son and one suggestion was sexual intercourse. Funny thing was they found for some reason an induced abortion produces more of this.

The paper you linked to isn’t entirely relevant to promiscuity. I did read that one, too. Note that sexual intercourse is only one of many ways your cells can enter someone else’s body. Serving someone food, for example, is equally plausible. There is no heritability quotient here, also.

Last month, people here were talking about telegony – which is where I assume you got your contention. (That’s the fancy name for what you were talking about, above).

This is the study people were discussing. It’s behind a paywall, and if I get it, it comes out watermarked with my name and place of employment, so I can’t post the whole thing. It’s worth a gander, though, if you have access.

I cannot advise anyone to enter into an obviously bad deal and likewise I cannot advise men to marry what I would not consider a good deal. Therefore I don’t. It is merely my opinion and they are free to do with it as they will.

The marriage market is distorted and the legal ramifications huge. I would advise men to avoid it as best they can.

The fact is that healthy men are biologically hard-wired to want to marry a woman and raise up a family. Most of the American men in question will marry a woman from the United States, which means that a large number of them will marry a non-virgin.

And I will keep advising them not to. At least they go in with their eyes wide open. Marry a virgin or don’t get married.

‘Last month, people here were talking about telegony – which is where I assume you got your contention.’

I wasn’t going that far as to the DNA of a child somehow having characteristics from a previous partner because of residual DNA. Pretty sure the DNA comes from the father and mother who biologically produced the child.

‘The fact is that healthy men are biologically hard-wired to want to marry a woman and raise up a family. Most of the American men in question will marry a woman from the United States, which means that a large number of them will marry a non-virgin.’

Promiscuity is a big problem…however I do think the inflated egos of women in this hedonistic sewer of a society we have is even worse. Virgins have to grow up with that influence too.

@earl: You are correct that the child’s DNA comes from the biological father and mother. And the mother’s eggs are formed before she is even born, so not much can happen to affect that DNA (although there is some evidence that things like LSD can cause mutations even in a woman’s eggs).

But the baby also inherits mitochondrial DNA from the mother only, and this is more subject to change, since there are more copies. It is an open question whether a woman’s sexual history can affect the mDNA she passes on to the baby. So far the science seems to say no.

Next, there is an effect on the child during birth due to bacteria, proteins and such in the birth canal. This can confer immunities or have other effects that affect the child not related to genome. It is here that sexual history may play a part – work on this area is still in its infancy (pun intended).

And reports show an interesting effect in males due to birth order. So far, studies seem to indicate that, after the first, every male born to the same woman has a higher probability of being gay than his previous brother. I remember reading this, but it is almost certainly not genetically based.

Then there’s the whole subject of the “war” going on between male and female genes for dominance, which is again a new field of study.

That isn’t the synthetic happiness I’m referring to. People can be happier making forced choices with “no take backs”.

The surprising science of happiness | Dan Gilbert

One way to change thinking is learning and practice but another way is to directly change how your body is positioned and change the environment.

Your body language may shape who you are | Amy Cuddy

If blue pill thinking is defined as the old set of books in which providing has higher value from women; would something like a zombie apocalypse reinsert people into the Matrix? When conditions change how fast will hypergamy adapt?

If the brain physically responds to body posture (even when faked), how much more could it respond to created environmental cues?

If hypergamy has a doubt / anxiety component, how does fasting relate to fear? Well in mice studies, it works to blunt fear responses: “Short-term fasting before fear acquisition specifically impaired long-term fear memory, whereas fasting before fear extinction facilitated extinction learning.”

So I’m curious how much old books vs new books is bounded by the environmental effects of the different eras. And how much changing the body’s chemistry to its more natural state effects these impulses (it certainly reduces obesity and makes people happier). So how much can shit tests also be quieted by just having women fast?

I once was a member at a FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST (Amening, bible-thumpin’, hanky-waiving, right-living, KJV-only) church. Where the music leader’s wife had hair just as short as his, and sang “specials” (the sensual, soulful kind) who had breast implants and juuuuuust happened to be the preacher’s daughter.

When I asked the preacher how he justified allowing a short haired woman with artificially enlarged breasts to lead the church in anything….his answer was it helps her self esteem.

You see, if you’re a long term single Christian woman, never-married, and your SMV is above an average of 7 for most of your life….

Then it clearly means something is probably wrong with you or with your expectations or with your attitudes. Imagine what society would tell a well educated young man who claims he is unable to find a job for most of his adult life…

‘ Imagine what society would tell a well educated young man who claims he is unable to find a job for most of his adult life…’

And you also forgot to add that the young man had God given talent to perform the job well and was constantly complemented on how well he can do that job. Sure he has turned down many good job opportunties…and he’s even had a few long-term employements, but he just can’t seem to find that job of his dreams.

Trinn Tragula says:
July 11, 2017 at 8:38 am
What is it about high-degree Freemason, luciferian-lion’s paw-posing-on-the-cover-of-Time-magazine (which itself is founded by luciferian skull-and-boner Henry Luce) Pat Robertson that makes you think he’s a Christian? Because he portrays himself as one?

You see, if you’re a long term single Christian woman, never-married, and your SMV is above an average of 7 for most of your life, well, then you can entertain the idea of making your singleness a novelty profession and write books, go on speaking tours, start a women’s ministry, and otherwise profit (for God of course) by it.

However, if you’re similarly a long term single Christian woman and your SMV is 6 or below, well, there’s always the “Jesus is my boyfriend” (literally) ceremony for you to make it official:

These men will never understand women like us. Women who love with all our heart, mind, body, and soul. Women who refuse to settle for mediocre but hold out for magical. Women who believe that love should never be average or lukewarm or just “okay” but life-changing and earth-shaking and boundary-breaking.

What odds would you give that if Mandy read this post she would say this isn’t a Christian site? But yet, I bet she could sooner respond honestly to it than the white night pastors would. Too tough of a call for me. But if she really does think sex before marriage is Christian, then this post and its comments probably wouldn’t reach her hard heart.

>Guys, there comes a time when we have to start being constructive. What can a Christian woman do to start finding a husband?

As has repeatedly been said before, they can become obedient. 1 Cor 11, Deut 22:5, Titus 2:3-5, etc. It’s not hard to understand the wisdom from God’s word, but it can be contrary to a person’s evil desires (James 1:13-15).

Kate
>emotional damage is every bit as important in avoiding

Prov 4:23:
Above all else, guard your heart
for it is the wellspring of life.

The science of happiness video is awesome! I especially liked the part about the painting rankings from the amnesia patients as it corroborated my point about the importance of making a choice and finding contentedness (and even preference) afterwards. I used to experience this all the time when buying shoes. I would be ho-hum about them in the store, but, since I needed a pair of shoes, I would eventually pick something only to find I was significantly happier with them when I tried them on at home. Obviously marriage is more complex, but the principle still applies.

Folks always seem to think their ultra conservative, fundy, whathaveyou church is different; but as unsigma observed its rarely true.

I have seen the same thing in other similarly traditional church circles. Church tradition holds them back some but they people all still live in the world. Even your homeschooled big family churches all too often have a femcentric mindset.

Yeah….every evangelical protestant seems to mouth the same worn phrases “but *my* church accepts and loves people and tells them to come as they are” or “well, if you want to be with broken people, come to my church…lots of broken people that Christ is doing amazing things with”

Amazing is like “love” now too. So shopworn and abused. “God is doing such amazing work with me, last week I got cut off in traffic and I just said God loves him to my son without getting mad!” An actual “testimony” I heard in my own church two Sundays ago, and of course applause, shouts of “Amen!”

You go to these churches. You sit. No one talks to you and if they do, it’s only to say “bring your friends next week!” (the numbers thing, not disciple making)

One man on his blog mentioned how “hot” all the singles were…….another speaks of all the great ministry and work they are doing making “victory” out of things that are not a victory. Talking revival but they would have zero clue themselves or as a church what to “do” with a revival, if God indeed gave one.

All comparing themselves to Daniel or some other amazing man used by God but forgetting the FACT that Daniel just one day didn’t become Holy. He was devoted 100% to God. He prayed. He lived a life worthy of His favor. He didn’t EXPECT reward, or blessing, or favor. he didn’t need a podcast. He didn’t need “books or seminars” not did he even have a physical PLACE to serve God IN. He didn’t need any of that. They never mention he was exiled as well. Heck, most churchians get annoyed if they are not recognized by all their “amazing work” they are doing.

I am not excluding my church in this as well. I hear the word “authentic” used by so many “hipster Christians” today (younger set 20-early 30’s) while they wax ironically in ironic tee-shirts…..so full of their own methane its no wonder they don’t sprout daisies. Holy flickering flames above them, and catered too on such a level that borders on insanity. Yet, they love Jesus more than anything…….well, except their iphone…..

Can you imagine American churchians having their church invaded by armed soldiers on a Sunday morning, being rounded up at gunpoint, herded onto windowless prison buses, and being told that they were being banished to Alaska above the Arctic Circle (unless they apostacized their faith on the spot)?

Nothing wrong with a podcast, blog or whatever. Those are good things in today’s day and age. Using them to hype yourself is the problem. They add good value when bringing forth solid doctrine and teaching. I am sure we will have some disagreement here on what is good, but good teaching is valuable, even in those forms.

I would rather see a whole bunch more red pilled Christian men with exactly those such media than 100,000 who just keep it all to them self!

Come to think of it, Dalrock, the whole female concept of “settling” is repulsive.
“Settling” for women inherently implies she could find a better partner than her present prospect. If I were him, I would say to generic wife-to-be that she is free to go and find someone better.
“Settling” also implies the imposition of servitude and mediocrity when doing what God and Biology have determined is the most important function of us living creatures: multiply and nurture.
This is a wrong and shameful attitude that has no place among God’s people.

feeriker says:
July 11, 2017 at 10:29 pm“They never mention [that Daniel] was exiled as well.

Can you imagine American churchians having their church invaded by armed soldiers on a Sunday morning, being rounded up at gunpoint, herded onto windowless prison buses, and being told that they were being banished to Alaska above the Arctic Circle (unless they apostacized their faith on the spot)?”

Reading the whole thing the OP seems to have a reasonable case, but in what known or theoretical universe would a man ever present himself as having a “good career” when he struggles to make ends meet and is thousands in debt?

In thinking back on the OP, I think Disney’s flicks needs to share some of the blame – along with parents that feed their girls on them. The princess films shape the desires and expectations of young girls to expect excitement, romance, wealth and twue wuv every minute from their relationship. But Aladdin had a genie. Eric was a prince, as were Charming, Beast and Snow White’s beau. Of course, those five were also made-up characters. Not many of the rest of us can measure up to romantic fiction.

I remember watching The Little Mermaid with our then-5 year old daughter. While I loved the music, I wound up horrified by the message: disobey Daddy and he’ll make it all right for you in the end. You’ll get the prince. Love will conquer all, even without words. Of course, in making the film, they absolutely reversed the ending of the Hans Christian Andersen tale it was based on. Because true love ALWAYS wins in the end.

One has only to look at the words quoted from the original articles of those two women to understand that this is exactly what they expect in a man.

I clicked on your link and was able to see the full article. Here’s the summary:

“In summary, we show that adult body size of offspring can be influenced by the phenotype of a female’s previous mate rather than the genetic sire in Telostylinus angusticollis. This novel transgenerational effect (an example of telegony) appears to be driven by the condition-dependent influence of male seminal fluid on the development of immature ovules. The potential for such effects exists in any taxon characterised by internal fertilisation and polyandry, and such effects could influence the evolution of reproductive strategies.”

am a woman in my late 20s with a good career, but I struggle to get by and have £10,000 worth of debt. Some of this I borrowed from my partner to repay a credit card. I have been with him for more than a year and we are talking about me moving in with him.

£10,000 is something like 15k USD. If this bitch can’t pay that off in a couple of months by being frugal, then she’s either lying about her “good career” or she’s an incurable spendthrift. Either way I don’t blame our brother for frantically throwing up roadblocks to her moving in.

Note also that once she moves in, there are certain legal protections she has (he’ll basically have to evict her to get her out. Also, if the UK is anything like Canada, once she moves in, she’ll almost instantly be eligible for alimony when they split, regardless of whether they are married, etc.)

Conclusion: My man doesn’t want her camping out at his place, but he doesn’t want to break up with her altogether, either. He wants her to be the “strong, independent woman” she boasts about being, and take care of her own shit.

“Settling” for women inherently implies she could find a better partner than her present prospect

It’s reached the point where every man needs to say to his “significant other” something to the effect of (though perhaps not quite as bluntly): “Look, bitch, I’m the best you’re going to get. If you really could do better than me, then you would actually BE with someone better than me right now. Matter o’ fact, this begs the question: why am I setling for some other guy’s reject? Do you really want to continue down this path of who is fit for whom?”

That’s hilarious how these spinsters rationalize this situation…a lot of women can act like bums and it’s the man’s fault for trying to help them out.

That’s because it is never, Ever, EVER a woman’s fault. EVERY mistake she makes, every stupid thing she does, every hole she digs for herself is SOME MAN’S FAULT. It might take time and creative hamsterbation to pin the blame on a culprit, but, by God it WILL happen sooner or later.

I think “good career” means different things to men and women. To a male, it’s either something you love doing, or it’s something that earns enough to support a family. To a female it’s something you love doing, or a job that enables a good “single” lifestyle.

In the articles Dalrock posted both the single ladies and their Churchian cheerleaders seem to think that a “good career” is one of the most important things that will make a woman attractive to a man.

‘I think “good career” means different things to men and women. To a male, it’s either something you love doing, or it’s something that earns enough to support a family. To a female it’s something you love doing, or a job that enables a good “single” lifestyle.’

Sounds right…for me it’s something I like to do and gives me funds to eat and have shelter. Considering after the fall that’s what men have to do.

I don’t know what it means for women unless it’s trying to rationalize getting out of marriage and children.

I object to all the cruel comments in this thread. Come on, I buy ALL my books on the topic of successful investing from authors who are homeless and living on the streets! Where else would you find such expertise on the value of money except from someone who has none???

Still laughing at the “good career” stuff. 15k USD isn’t nothing, but it’s not Note that if a man had a 15 large debt to pay off, he’d quit going to starbucks twice a day, get a cheap ghetto phone, and pack his lunch. Maybe he’d drive for Uber two nights a week or something. He’d get it paid off in weeks, or months, rather than have it hanging over his head.

In the articles Dalrock posted both the single ladies and their Churchian cheerleaders seem to think that a “good career” is one of the most important things that will make a woman attractive to a man.

tl;dr: It’s the result of an ambiguity in gender roles, combined with displacement, in the Freudian sense. Skank-ho women swallow the feminist delusion that femininity is a “social construct” (or something), and then they proceed to offload some of their angst into becoming a “good provider” in the hopes of attracting a man. They seem oblivious to the fact that men are not biologically wired to look for a provider.

It’s like, bitch, I don’t care if you’re on a partnership track at a biglolyer firm. I want you to be cute and sexy. Moreover, if I were a traditional religious guy, your job would actually be a turn-off, because your chasing status and money would cut into the time you’d be spending raising my kids.

Anyway, she’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with society. Great link.

‘Still laughing at the “good career” stuff. 15k USD isn’t nothing, but it’s not Note that if a man had a 15 large debt to pay off, he’d quit going to starbucks twice a day, get a cheap ghetto phone, and pack his lunch. Maybe he’d drive for Uber two nights a week or something. He’d get it paid off in weeks, or months, rather than have it hanging over his head.’

Whereas all a irresponsible woman has to do is sucker a guy who makes money into paying it off for her and then blame him for trying to help her out because it’s some power play or something. I don’t mind paying for women when it’s something I’m responsible for…but when it is a debt they created alone, they should pay it off.

“That’s odd. I just searched the pdf for “human” and “women” and came up with zero matches.”

I said telegony (the influence of previous mates on phenotype) is POSSIBLE in humans. Aren’t humans a taxon characterized by internal fertilization and (sometimes) polandry?

I should have said that the mechanism “APPEARS TO BE” instead of “is” and should have added the qualifier “condition dependence.” The details of the conditional dependence weren’t given in the summary so I will have to read the entire paper.

I know the difference between phenotype and genotype – that’s why I said “apart from sperm/DNA”

I’m not certain that you have enough knowledge to know what conclusions I WANT to draw. I posted the excerpt because I was successful in getting the whole paper (I think!) for free and just wanted to point it out to you.

So I assumed you had actually read it. I’d still encourage you to read the article, especially if you want to talk about it with other people who have, actually, read it.

I said telegony (the influence of previous mates on phenotype) is POSSIBLE in humans. Aren’t humans a taxon characterized by internal fertilization and (sometimes) polandry?

Well, it’s possible (or POSSIBLE) that pigs will fly, the world will end tomorrow, and that “Telegony is possible in serially polyandrous humans (most modern women). The mechanism is seminal fluid molecules apart from sperm/DNA.”

The problem in making these claims is that nothing in the paper you’ve cited supports any of them.

I’m not certain that you have enough knowledge to know what conclusions I WANT to draw. I posted the excerpt because I was successful in getting the whole paper (I think!) for free and just wanted to point it out to you.

No doubt my cognitive challenges are too great to continue these heroic efforts at schooling me. Thank you again for your time, and have a good day.

Naturally my summary was weighted towards manosphere concerns because this is a manosphere site. The commenters here probably aren’t extremely interested in fruitflies.

I understand that. The problem is that if you’re going to cite something to support your manosphere-concern-centric conclusion, the primary source ought to actually be relevant to it.

When feminists source their craziness with irrelevant journal articles, we laugh at them for their stupidity. We should be learn from their missteps and not indulge in similar antics over here, you know?

In the articles Dalrock posted both the single ladies and their Churchian cheerleaders seem to think that a “good career” is one of the most important things that will make a woman attractive to a man.

Yeah, the problem has to do with the fact that certain social classes are remaking social norms in ways that apply only to their social class, really, but which are trying to be applied elsewhere, and not in a great way.

There is the concept that Dalrock has spoken of as the “feminist merit badge”. Among highly-educated men this is a real thing. I have spent my life around these kinds of people, men and women (lawyers and business execs), and there tend to be two kinds of marriages among them (I mean for people under say 55): (1) man is married to woman with good career who leaves her job to become SAHM (the classic feminist merit badge scenario) and (2) man is married to woman with good career and they do tag-team split of income and child care duties. There really aren’t very many marriages among this group where a man is married to a woman who is like a secretary or a schoolteacher or a receptionist. There are a few of them, but really not very many of them. In this set, it isn’t incorrect for the women to think that their own achievements are important in terms of what the men are looking for in a *wife* (they seem to be — these marriages are generally very much sorted on that basis even if the wife subsequently leaves the career track). Of course, this is much more about class signaling and status signaling (and virtue signaling as well) among this group of people than it is about the guy being attracted to a woman’s achievements, or being interested in being financially supported by the wife’s income — but the merit badge itself, for the various status signalings, is very common in this group and is used as a sorter when it comes to marriages.

When you get to more “normal” situations, these status signaling types of things don’t apply, which is where the social norms being passed down from these groups to the broader society begin to run aground. Very few men below this group are sorting for the feminist merit badge, really — it just is a non-issue to most of them. But the women are being tutored about this stuff by women who are in the feminist merit badge group (this is, after all, the most prominent women, and the ones who tend to write books and articles that influence cultural norms), so the norm spreads into areas where it doesn’t really apply because those areas are not governed by the same status signaling regime. And then things get messed up as a result of that.

‘What is even more astounding than a 38 year old never married woman offering her own errors for marriage minded women to emulate, is the fact that such women are eagerly accepted as possessing great wisdom on the topic. The longer a woman has failed to accomplish something nearly all women accomplish, the more qualified she is seen to instruct other women on the matter!’
perfect!

The authors write “the potential exists” which carries the same meaning as my use of “possible.” You could easily answer them by saying “the potential exists that pigs could fly, the world could end”, etc. They thought “the potential exists” to be important enough to include in their short summary statement. So I don’t understand your mocking of my use of “possible.”

“The problem in making these claims is that nothing in the paper you’ve cited supports any of them.”
My use of “is” instead of “appears to be” (which I corrected) aside, your statement seems to suggest that the authors don’t know how to summarize their own paper. Their summary reads “The potential for such effects exists in any taxon characterised by internal fertilisation and polyandry.” “Such effects” refers to telegony, the word they chose for the title of the paper and that I used in my summary. Humans are one of the taxon characterized by internal fertilization and polyandry.

“The problem is that if you’re going to cite something to support your manosphere-concern-centric conclusion, the primary source ought to actually be relevant to it.”

“No doubt my cognitive challenges are too great to continue these heroic efforts at schooling me.”
BTW, I wasn’t implying you have cognitive challenges. I have not gotten that impression from anything you’ve written. I try not to insult other commenters either directly or indirectly (even though you have insulted me – your use of formalities such as “good day”, “regards” and “best” notwithstanding.)
I was stating that you don’t know what conclusions I want to draw because you don’t know me. I don’t comment very often. I suspect you are grouping me with previous commenters on this topic (from this or other postings.)

(As an aside, I note with some amusement that the original poster, from June of this year, is in this thread, but keeping his mouth shut on our topic. I hope he pays attention.)

The authors write “the potential exists” which carries the same meaning as my use of “possible.” You could easily answer them by saying “the potential exists that pigs could fly, the world could end”, etc. They thought “the potential exists” to be important enough to include in their short summary statement. So I don’t understand your mocking of my use of “possible.”

The author’s wrote “the potential exists x” which you paraphrased as “it’s possible y”. What they’re talking about, and what you’re talking about, are sufficiently different to warrant pointing out.

I am sorry that you feel like you’re being mocked, but I also admire your ability to keep arguing. I think this is an important meta-discussion about lexical range and interpretation, and I think a lot of guys around here ought to learn from it.

your statement seems to suggest that the authors don’t know how to summarize their own paper.

The authors summarized it well. They proved *something* was happening in fruit-flies, and they proved that it was not based on retained DNA. They went on to speculate about what might have caused the *something* that happened in fruit flies, because they hope that someone else will pick up their project and do more research.

I’m not a biologist, but I’ve read tons of papers like this in my own and related disciplines. These articles are written precisely, and they’re meant to be read precisely. When you extrapolate all sorts of conclusions, that are nowhere in the text, you’re not really reading them. You’re just using them as a prop, to support whatever your own personal hopes and dreams happen to be. That isn’t good scholarship.

I may be misunderstanding. Are you arguing that x is “telegony in in any taxon characterised by internal fertilisation and polyandry” and y is “telegony in humans.” If so, I’d argue y is a subset of x not a different set.
They named the apparent mechanism/driver which I guess is speculation (I’m not a scientist so I don’t speak their language fluently). They did not seem too shy about making a fairly broad extrapolation (“any taxon characterised by”) but again I am not a scientist. If you have read many research papers then you have more experience than I do.

I may be misunderstanding. Are you arguing that x is “telegony in in any taxon characterised by internal fertilisation and polyandry” and y is “telegony in humans.” If so, I’d argue y is a subset of x not a different set.

I’m arguing that x is exactly what you wrote, above, i.e.:Telegony is possible in serially polyandrous humans (most modern women). The mechanism is seminal fluid molecules apart from sperm/DNA.

You seem to have modified it a bit, piecemeal, but you still hold to the same basic contention.

They did not seem too shy about making a fairly broad extrapolation (“any taxon characterised by”) but again I am not a scientist.

Note the language that’s bolded (emphasis mine):

The potential for such effects exists in any taxon characterised by internal fertilisation and polyandry, and such effects could influence the evolution of reproductive strategies.

That bolded part means something, and you’ve consistently left it out of your synopsis.

More generally, This is a material implication argument. The argument ‘(genetic retention) then (characteristics passed on)’ is sorta similar, formally, to ‘(it’s raining) then (the grass is wet)’. The only thing we can be sure of in context is that if it were raining, the grass would be wet. (In context, we know that a implies b, in either case). Suddenly, we’ve become aware of a new fact, namely that the grass is wet, and it’s not raining. This means that something else must be going on. We would need to do more research to pin down a cause for the wet grass. Just like our researchers have noted that something is being modified, even though there’s no genetic material being retained or recombined in fruit flies.

Basically they’ve ruled out a, which is something significant. It’s just not what you and others are talking about here.

No, you said x was what the authors wrote:
“The author’s wrote “the potential exists x”

“That bolded part means something, and you’ve consistently left it out of your synopsis.”
I don’t believe I left it out. Doesn’t “telegony is possible in” mean the same thing as “The potential for such effects exists in “(bolded)? “Such effects” is telegony (without reference to the cause).

The researchers seem to say the grass is wet, it’s not raining, but also say it appears to be caused by the sprinklers being on. There’s enough of an appearance of causation that they even make a fairly broad extrapolation based on other organisms having similar reproductive mechanism and habits.
I’m sorry, I haven’t had a course in basic logic in 25 years (community college). No sarcasm there – I just can’t match you on that I’m sure.
I have skimmed the paper (mainly because I was curious about what condition-dependent meant. It is possible I am missing something from the main body. Still you think an abstract and a summary paragraph wouldn’t contradict what’s in the main body.
I am doing my best here.

I don’t believe I left it out. Doesn’t “telegony is possible in” mean the same thing as “The potential for such effects exists in “(bolded)? “Such effects” is telegony (without reference to the cause).

Well, you leave out a precise definition for it, every time you mention it. The fact that something general can’t be ruled out doesn’t mean that something specific is happening. Those are two very different formal statements, you know.

x can not be ruled out
doesn’t really have the same meaning as
x is true

They’re basically giving a shout out to any postdocs who might want to get grant money and study exactly what is going on.

I’m sorry, I haven’t had a course in basic logic in 25 years (community college). No sarcasm there – I just can’t match you on that I’m sure.

You’re a smart guy. The study said: If a implies b, and b is happening without a, then b ought to be studied further.

That doesn’t mean that c, d or e implies b; though our researchers might hint that future research ought to go in that direction.

Still you think an abstract and a summary paragraph wouldn’t contradict what’s in the main body.

Just a few weeks ago, I was reading things like:

Women absorb and carry living DNA and cells from every male they have sexual intercourse with

And the writer of that nonsense sourced this article.*

Now we’re down to arguing over minutia, so I can live with it. It was a good argument, and a productive one, and I’m grateful for your patience. (and yes, I mean that sincerely).

Best,

Boxer

*The aforementioned article was sourced indirectly, mediated by a prestigious journal called “Godlike Productions,” that exists only as a web forum, focusing on conspiracy theories. Also, for the record, neither Bruce nor Earl wrote that nonsense.

I bash reformed ho’s because i ignored my gut and married one . . . biggest “mistake” of my life! My friends that married virgins are happy and can focus on the business of living, while I am bracing for the aftermath of a divorce 16 years in the making. So yeah, I tell any young bucks who have ears to hear that they should marry a virgin or not at all. Projecting, yes, the truth, hell yes!!

I read the entire paper. Maybe I’m missing something, but I didn’t get the same conclusion that you did at all.

I got no sense that they speculated about what’s going on as a call out for others to do more research. They seemed to clearly say that their study demonstrated that non-genetic, seminal-fluid based factors are implicated in telegony.

Nor did they seem rule out what you call “a”/”it’s raining”/ “there’s no genetic material being retained.” It seems that they didn’t test for genetic material retention-it wasn’t part of the experiment. Non-genetic seminal fluid based factors were implicated because the first male/mate was selected from two groups, one in which environmentally-induced phenotype was controlled/selected whereas genotype was randomized/not controlled in both groups. Genetic based factors were not ruled out/disproved, they weren’t addressed (why I don’t know*). Female differential allocation was clearly ruled out using detailed methodology-they explicitly addressed this. The focus of the paper clearly seemed to be non-genetic factors.

They did seem to rule out epigenetic influences on telegony, again with an explicit statement to this effect.

I also note the use of their phrase “taxonomically widespread” again indicating such effects may be present in animals in general.

So, yes, I think their study is relevant to manosphere concerns and do not think we are being a mirror image of nutty feminists in citing it (albeit, with carefully limited arguments, qualifications, etc.). I think we should bear in mind the bounds of what they have demonstrated and not demonstrated, what is extrapolation, etc.

* Maybe no genetic retention is self-evident to a biologist? I don’t know.

I got no sense that they speculated about what’s going on as a call out for others to do more research. They seemed to clearly say that their study demonstrated that non-genetic, seminal-fluid based factors are implicated in telegony.

Seminal fluid is very well-understood. What, specifically, is being transmitted from male > mother ? What is the mechanism of transfer?

Make sure to refer back to the source. I have a PDF of it.

I also note the use of their phrase “taxonomically widespread” again indicating such effects may be present in animals in general.

Again you’re saying “may be” but what you mean is “probably is”. You’re making a much stronger claim than I’m reading the researchers make.

I don’t have time to reread it this minute. From memory, the mechanism is proteins in the seminal fluid which effect the development of immature eggs.

Right. Here’s a couple of snippets:

The hypothesised mechanism of telegony

As semen-mediated effects may only be possible when seminal products can penetrate developing ovules, such effects may be precluded when mating takes place after egg chorionation.

Note that there’s a whole lotta maybes in here, and nothing in the way of a definitive statement about the specific mechanism of mutation.

We therefore predicted that the condition of the first male (with which females mated while their ovules were immature) would affect offspring development, but the condition of the second male (with which females mated when their eggs were already chorionated and ready to be laid) would not (Fig. 1), and our results corroborate these predictions. [By the same token, we can reject an epigenetic (e.g. DNA methyl- ation-based) mechanism: if the effect of male condition on offspring were mediated by epigenetic factors associated with sperm DNA, then the effect would be tied to fertilisation, pre- dicting a second male effect but no first male effect in our experiment.] It is possible that effects of the second male’s condition could have been detected in females’ subsequent broods (from ovules developing while exposed to semen of the second male). An alternative explanation for the lack of a sec- ond male effect on offspring traits is that second males were non-virgins and 2 weeks older than first males at the time of mating. Seminal fluid can change in composition as a male ages (Simmons et al. 2014), and females can become less responsive to the effects of semen with age (Fricke et al. 2013). This interpretation is unlikely to explain our results, however, because we have previously detected paternal effects when males were non-virgins, and when males and females were more than 3 weeks old (Adler & Bonduriansky 2013).

I’ve retained a bit about epigenesis. I don’t think the results here rule it out at all. What I see them saying is that their specific experiment suggested some other mechanism, in their example.

As an aside, the vaunted “God Like Productions” discussion hosted a variety of papers, but it now appears to be behind a wall. If you can get more stuff that you’re confident can’t be traced back to you, I’ll host it on my blog.

“As semen-mediated effects may only be possible when seminal products can penetrate developing ovules, such effects may be precluded when mating takes place after egg chorionation.”

The “may” and “may be” you highlighted do not stop them from drawing conclusions on the hypotheisis they tested and report in the paper. I think they tested for this by testing for the 2nd mate effects.

Yes but you said there were pointers for researchers for the mechanisms as if they didn’t demonstrate a mechanism.
So the “other taxom” possibility were research pointers. OK – I’ll buy that. Yes, they have only demonstrated the phenomena in flies. If I wrote a manosphere article on the topic I’d point out that they haven’t demonstrated it in lizards, fish, ground-sloths, humans, etc. I would say that the researchers said “the potential exists.” I think a carefully written, useful article (not my hasty, sloppy summary in a comment) could be written for the manosphere before someone bothers (if they ever do) to do research on chimps or humans or whatever.

The “may” and “may be” you highlighted do not stop them from drawing conclusions on the hypotheisis they tested and report in the paper. I think they tested for this by testing for the 2nd mate effects.

Keep in mind that there are limits established in the paper. They draw conclusions about their experiment, within its boundaries. They aren’t generalizing them.

I think a carefully written, useful article (not my hasty, sloppy summary in a comment) could be written for the manosphere before someone bothers (if they ever do) to do research on chimps or humans or whatever.

We’re actually not disagreeing any longer. 🙂

You just have to find someone to fund further research. I think that the current political climate (thanks, feminists!) is probably not very conducive to such studies, which is a shame. Some manosphere type should make friends with some Saudi prince or Russian oligarch, who doesn’t give a shit about the feminists, and get those postdocs working!

Funny you note that. I read a dating profile recently where the pictures were on the sleazy side, but the profile text was the worst. This woman noted she had a “high libido”.

I do want someone who won’t shy away from sex, but someone who highlights that on their profile is not who I want, especially because it means she is fulfilling that and I will just be getting what is left over on the snack bar, if that.

From a sociological stand point, the battle of egos that will be involved in maintaining a relationship with some of the really strong-willed women described in the article will make most men run the other way.
I will like to posit a new theory; that strong independent women need wives not husbands.
If they get a man who bends to their will, then he is a push-over and is literally pushed over. If they get a man who will not be pushed over, but is one of a kind that can be in a relationship with her; well it usually also happens that other women are interested and such men may not be keepers in the sense she wants.

So my new theory, is strong, independent women should rather get wives. And wives not as strong as they are. That is the surest way, they can control the outcome of the relationship they desire.